Essay

Journal of Relationships Research, 3, 67–80 c© Cambridge University Press 2012. doi 10.1017/jrr.2012.8

Full-Dimensionality of Relating in Romantic Relationships Anca M. Miron, Frances H. Rauscher, Alexandra Reyes, David Gavel and Kourtney K. Lechner University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, USA

We propose that an orientation toward relating to one’s romantic partner via multiple sensory channels has beneficial effects for the relationship, especially for long-distance relationships. We used Wicklund’s (2004) conceptualisation of full-dimensionality of relating and Brehm’s (1999) emotional intensity theory to test the effects of a sensory multidimensional orientation and difficulty of maintaining the romantic relationship on feelings of love and commitment. In Study 1, we tested 55 participants involved in a long-distance romantic relationship and found that a multidimensional orientation fended off the detrimental effects of difficulty of maintaining the relationship: when partners experienced high difficulty, those with a high orientation experi- enced more positive affect, love, and commitment than those with a low orientation. In Study 2, data from 31 long-distance and 23 geographically-close participants indicated that a high multidimensionality orientation had a greater positive impact in long-distance relationships than in geographically-close relationships. In Study 3, 40 long-distance participants were asked to write about two times when it was either difficult but possible or nearly impossible to maintain their current relationship. Positive affect for the partner, love, and desire to be with the partner in the future were highest for the participants in the possible condition who preferred relating to the partner on multiple sensory channels. Altogether, these studies underline the importance of multidimensional orientation in romantic relationships, especially when intimates perceive maintaining the relationship as being difficult but manageable. Theoretical and practical implications of this new concept of sensory multidimensionality orientation are discussed.

� Keywords: romantic relationships, sensory channels, love, full-dimensionality, long-distance relationships

Full-dimensionality of relating is an ideal state of com- plete interaction with another person, using all sensory channels of relating (Wicklund, 2004, 2007). We use the term multidimensionality orientation to refer to the inti- mates’ preference for relating to their significant other on multiple sensory channels, including hearing, sight, touch, bodily sensations (warmth, texture, scent), as well as relating to the other indirectly through an object that is imbued with the partner’s essence. We use the term complete other (Wicklund, 2004) to refer to a person with whom an interaction on all sensory dimensions is estab- lished or desired.

In this article, we further explore this concept of full dimensionality of relating by taking a closer look at its benefits in romantic relationships, and more specifically by testing its moderating role in the link between relation- ship difficulties and feelings of love and commitment. To our knowledge, this is the first attempt at operationalis- ing this concept and empirically testing its role in roman- tic relationships. We propose that an orientation toward

relating to one’s romantic partner via multiple sensory channels has beneficial effects, especially for those in- volved in long-distance relationships.

In long-distance (LD) relationships, romantic inti- mates typically experience limited three-dimensional in- teraction and instead must rely on mediated commu- nication (Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Stephen, 1986). In these relationships, desire for full-dimensional relating to the partner may be exacerbated due to physical distance. Because one single channel may not be sufficient to sat- isfy the need for a complete other and to maintain the relationship, LD intimates may be oriented toward us- ing more channels of relating to their partner and more often. For instance, if LD partners cannot talk to their partner in person, they may attempt to reach the person

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Anca Miron, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, Oshkosh, WI 54901, USA. Email: [email protected]

67

ANCA M. MIRON ET AL.

over the telephone or email. Given that hearing and see- ing are incomplete sensory channels of relating when used by themselves (Kock, 2004), intimates may become motivated to try out more sensory channels of relating compared to their geographically-close (GC) counter- parts. In turn, an orientation toward multidimensional relating helps maintain the relationship by buffering the negative effects of geographical distance on the relationship. In the next section, we elaborate on these negative effects of physical distance.

Distance as an Obstacle to Full-Dimensional Relating In LD relationships, geographical distance may lead to relationship difficulties because it restricts LD partners’ ability to communicate and relate to each other face-to- face, to solve conflicts in a timely manner, and to engage in small talk — all important characteristics of an enduring relationship (Gerstel & Gross, 1982; Govaerts & Dixon, 1988; Holt & Stone, 1988; Rohlfing, 1995).

From a motivational perspective, distance between two people does not always have negative consequences for the relationship. For instance, Wicklund (2004) concep- tualised distance between two people as an obstacle that can enhance attraction in relationships. Research based on the energisation model of motivation (Brehm & Self, 1989; Gendolla & Wright, 2005) and emotional inten- sity theory (Brehm, 1999) has shown that the magnitude of the obstacle matters: the greater the obstacle to an emotional or motivational state, the more intense the emotion/motivation will be, up to a point where the emotion/motivation will be drastically reduced by an in- surmountable obstacle. The increased emotional or mo- tivational intensity in the case of goals that are difficult but possible to achieve is assumed to keep the person focused on the significant event that instigated the emo- tion/motivation and to sustain the achievement of the pursued goal (Brehm, 1999).

In the context of romantic relationships, moderate ob- stacles to the relationship can mobilise positive affect for the partner, whereas high or insurmountable obstacles can reduce positive feelings (Miron, Knepfel, & Parkinson, 2009; Roberson & Wright, 1994; Wright, 1937; Wright, Toi, & Brehm, 1985). Wright et al. (1985) found that the intensity of interpersonal attraction was determined by difficulty of establishing a relationship with a poten- tial date. Male participants were expected to perform a memory task in order to qualify for a meeting with a moderately attractive woman. Those who expected the task to be moderately difficult were more attracted to the woman than those who expected to perform a very difficult task. This is because energy is spent toward a goal only when the goal is deemed to be achieved with the available resources. In order to operate efficiently, the organism needs to mobilise sufficient but not excessive energy to achieve its goals. Once the resources required

by the goal exceed the person’s capabilities as in the case of goals that are very difficult or impossible to achieve, the motivation to achieve the goal dissipates because the goal is no longer worth the effort (Brehm & Self, 1989; Brehm & Wright, 1989; Klinger, 1975; Wright, 1998).

Miron et al. (2009) found further support for these theoretical ideas. In romantic relationships, reasons for not liking the partner can act as potent obstacles to feel- ings of love for the partner, by making it difficult for a person to continue feeling positively about the partner and the relationship. In accordance with Brehm’s theory, Miron et al. (2009) found that writing about the second most important partner flaw maintained high feelings of love and commitment, whereas writing about the most important partner flaw (a characteristic which may make it extremely difficult to justify being in a relationship with the partner) drastically reduced positive affect and commitment to the partner.

Reasoning by analogy the way romantic partners ap- praise the difficulties inherent in relating at distance mat- ters: if they believe it is moderately difficult to maintain the relationship, positive affect for the partner should be high. However, if they believe that maintaining the rela- tionship is extremely difficult or impossible to do, positive feelings for the partner should decrease.

The Role of Multidimensional Relating While there is no prior work on the functions of mul- tidimensional relating in romantic relationships, evi- dence on the importance of physical touch is abundant (Field, 2010; Gallace & Spence, 2010). Physical touch is highly correlated with relationship and partner satisfac- tion (Gulledge & Fischer-Lokou, 2003; Montagu, 1977); in fact, several electronic devices have been designed to ap- proximate this sensory dimension. For example, the ‘keep in touch’ system was designed for couples to have physical intimacy across distances (Motamedi, 2007). The fabric touch screen presents a blurred image of each partner; when the partner touches various parts of the body, the image is brought into focus. In the absence of opportu- nities for touch, the use of the internet and telephone by intimates to communicate with each other was found to increase love and relational satisfaction (Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Gunn & Gunn, 2000).

Romantic intimates who habitually engage in mul- tidimensional relating may have higher motivation to maintain the relationship. This higher level of motiva- tion should provide the intimates with more resources and energy to deal with relationship obstacles. Similarly, intimates who are more oriented toward sensory full di- mensionality may have become better (i.e., more com- petent) at relating to the partner on multiple sensory dimensions through socialisation and experience (Wick- lund, 2007). In other words, romantic partners may learn the benefits of interacting with a complete other — having

68 Journal of Relationships Research

FULL-DIMENSIONALITY OF RELATING

more complex sensory interactions with the partner and a more satisfying relationship in general — from their face-to-face interactions with their partner, which in turn enhance their preference for full dimensionality.

Irrespective of the reason for being more orientated to- ward multidimensional or full-dimensional relating, we will show in this article that an orientation toward relating to one’s partner on multiple sensory channels has benefi- cial effects for the relationship. Specifically, based on prior work on the role on obstacles on affect (Miron et al., 2009; Miron, Ferguson, & Peterson, 2011; Wright et al., 1985), we predict that under conditions of moderate difficulty, positive affect for the partner, and love and commitment to the partner should be high, but should decrease when difficulty of maintaining the relationship is high. How- ever, an orientation toward relating to the partner on multiple sensory channels should protect romantic inti- mates against high relationship difficulty because it fur- nishes the partners with greater motivation and/or skills for maintaining the relationship. Taking into consider- ation intimates’ sensory multidimensionality orientation as a moderating factor should then enhance our under- standing of how romantic partners, particularly those in long-distance relationships, cope with relationship diffi- culties and maintain their relationship despite these ob- stacles.

Current Studies We systematically investigated whether LD intimates are oriented toward interacting with their romantic partner on multiple sensory channels of relating. These channels are expected to map onto the basic sensory modalities: hearing, sight, touch, bodily sensations, as well as vicar- ious sensory relating. We define vicarious sensory relating as relating to the partner indirectly via an object that is imbued with the partner’s essence or persona. The object may be the partner’s t-shirt that still has his or her scent, or the partner’s voicemail or photo, and may vicariously recreate union with the partner.

The second goal of the current research was to explore the motivational benefits of having a multidimensionality orientation in LD relationships when the relationship is difficult to maintain. In Study 1, we measured the sub- jective appraisal of obstacles to the relationship by asking LD participants to assess the difficulty of maintaining the relationship and of keeping the relationship exciting. Using a motivational perspective on obstacles (Brehm, 1999; Miron et al., 2009; Miron et al., 2011), we pre- dicted that high difficulty of maintaining the relationship should reduce feelings of love and commitment to the partner. Nevertheless, a multidimensionality orientation should buffer the detrimental effects of difficulty on the relationship. These effects should be particularly strong in the case of LD relationships, in which living separately creates additional obstacles to the relationship.

In Study 2, we compared the effects of multidimen- sionality orientation in LD versus GC relationships. First, we expected that LD participants would be more oriented toward relating to their partner on multiple channels than participants in GC relationships. Second, prior work sug- gests that although LD relationships involve more hard- ships and obstacles, LD intimates experienced greater commitment and love than those in GC relationships (Stafford & Reske, 1990). In Study 2, we explored one potential explanation for these findings — that an orien- tation toward multidimensional relating may help those involved in LD relationships deal with relationship hard- ships.

In Study 3, we experimentally manipulated the per- ceived manageability of maintaining the LD relation- ship (possible vs. nearly impossible to maintain). In line with prior theorising on the effect of obstacles on affect (Brehm, 1999), we hypothesised that a multidimension- ality orientation should protect the relationship when the relationship is difficult but possible to maintain. How- ever, when participants feel that the relationship is nearly impossible to maintain, positive feelings for the partner should be reduced, irrespective of the intimates’ multi- dimensionality orientation, because in this case positive affect for the partner is no longer useful in maintaining the relationship.

Study 1 Instead of focusing on specific communication means (e.g., phone, face-to-face), we sought to identify the ba- sic sensory dimensions of relating that underlie various means of communication. We assessed multidimension- ality orientation by measuring preference for the sen- sory channels of relating to the partner. These channels are hearing, sight, touch, active touch, bodily sensation (warmth, texture, scent), and vicarious sensory relating. Then, we explored the effects of the orientation toward using multiple channels (vs. fewer channels) and difficulty of maintaining the relationship on several important rela- tionship variables. Specifically, we tested two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: The more face-to-face time partners spent with each other, the more they would prefer using each of the sensory channels. Spending time with the partner should allow romantic intimates to engage in multidi- mensional relating and should thus influence their habit- ual preference for the use of the direct sensory channels (e.g., touch or sight). On the other hand, the more time participants spent between face-to-face visits, the more they should prefer using the vicarious sensory channel — the only channel that they could use in the absence of the partner.

Hypothesis 2: When participants report moderate diffi- culty of maintaining the relationship, positive feelings for the partner, love, and commitment will be high, regardless of the number of preferred sensory channels. However,

Journal of Relationships Research 69

ANCA M. MIRON ET AL.

when participants report higher difficulty of maintaining the relationship, those who prefer more channels of relat- ing will experience more positive affect, love, and com- mitment than those who prefer fewer sensory channels. This is because a high multidimensionality orientation may furnish the partners with greater impetus and skills for maintaining the relationship.

Given our interest in the role of difficulty of maintain- ing the relationship and the expectation that intimates in LD relationship would be more likely to have a mul- tidimensionality preference, we focused on LD relation- ships. We assumed that these relationships would provide us with a fairly broad range of difficulty appraisals — a good test for our hypotheses.

Method Participants Fifty-five male and female undergraduate students from the Psychology Department’s participant pool were se- lected to participate in the study based on their answers to two prescreening questions: (1) Are you currently in a relationship with a romantic partner? and (2) Are you currently involved in a long-distance romantic relation- ship? Only participants who answered both questions affirmatively were eligible for the study. Six participants who were no longer involved in a relationship at the time of the study were excluded, leaving the data from 49 participants (40 females and 9 males) for analysis. All participants received course credit for participating in the study. This participant selection procedure was used in all three studies reported in this paper.

Procedure Multidimensionality orientation We measured multidimensionality orientation with ques- tions that mapped the sensory dimensions of relating. We also measured vicarious sensory relating. All these items were assessed on 11-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (Extremely disagree) to 5 (Neither agree or disagree) to 10 (Extremely agree). Appendix A displays these six chan- nels of relating. To assess the number of channels that participants preferred, we coded each channel of relating as 0 (scores lower or equal to 5 (Neither agree nor dis- agree), which is the mid-point of the scale) and 1 (scores greater than 5). We coded each channel this way, and created a variable labelled Preferred Number of Channels by summing the scores on all the channel variables (0 = minimum number; 6 = maximum number; α = .86). Thus, a participant with a score of 6 reported a preference for all six channels of relating (hearing, sight, touch, ac- tive touch, bodily sensation, and vicarious relating) and, thus, had a high multidimensionality orientation.

Difficulty We measured difficulty of maintaining the relationship with two items (α = .62): (1) ‘How difficult is it to maintain the relationship?’ (2) ‘How difficult is it to keep the relationship exciting?’

Dependent measures Positive affect toward the partner was measured with one item: ‘When you think of your romantic partner, how positively or negatively do you feel about him or her?’ on a scale ranging from -5 (Very negatively) to +5 (Very pos- itively). Passionate love was measured with three items (α = .91): (1) ‘To what extent are you in love with this person?’ (2) ‘To what extent are you crazy about this person?’ and (3) ‘How passionate would you rate your relationship with this person?’ on scales ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 10 (Extremely). Commitment to the person was assessed with one item: ‘How committed to this per- son do you feel?’ on an 11-point scale ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 10 (Extremely). To explore how a multidimen- sionality orientation related to the presence or absence of opportunities for interaction (i.e., time spent face-to-face and time between visits), we also asked participants to in- dicate the average number of hours per day they spent with their partners face-to-face and the average number of days per month between face-to-face visits.

Results Table 1 displays the distribution of the preferred number of channels in the three studies. We tested Hypothesis 1 by exploring the correlations between each preferred channel and the time spent face-to-face with their partners.

As shown in Table 2 and as predicted by Hypothesis 1, the average face-to-face time was positively and signifi- cantly correlated with a preference for touch, bodily sen- sations, vicarious sensory relating, and hearing. This vari- able was also correlated positively but nonsignificantly with active touch and sight. Thus, when participants could relate to their partners face-to-face, they preferred using multiple direct sensory channels of relating.

Also, as predicted, only vicarious relating was signifi- cantly and positively correlated with the average number of days per month between face-to-face visits. This sug- gests that the longer participants did not see their partners each month — the longer they lacked opportunities for full-dimensional relating — the more they prefer using indirect sensory channels of relating. Thus, Hypothesis 1 received fairly good support.

To test Hypothesis 2, we ran three multiple regression analyses. It is possible that participants found it difficult to maintain the relationship because they were oriented toward using fewer channels due to the long-distance na- ture of the relationship. However, the correlation between Difficulty and Preferred number of channels was not sig- nificant, r = −.10, p = .49. Given that the two variables

70 Journal of Relationships Research

FULL-DIMENSIONALITY OF RELATING

TABLE 1

Frequency of Preferred Channels of Relating in the Three Studies

Study 1 Study 2 Study 3

Number of channels Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

0 0 0 0 0 3 9.4 1 0 0 3 5.6 0 2 4 8.2 2 3.7 1 3.1 3 6 12.2 4 7.4 1 3.1 4 2 4.1 7 13 3 9.4 5 16 32.7 7 13 3 12.5 6 21 42.9 31 57.4 20 62.5

Note: Frequency of preferred channels of relating reported by LD participants in Study 1 (N = 49), by both GC and LD participants in Study 2 (N = 54), and by LD participants in Study 3 (N = 32).

TABLE 2

Correlations Between Preferred Channels of Relating and Relationship Demographic Variables (Study 1)

Face-to-face time per day

Time between visits per month

Touch .32* .22 Vicarious relating .30* .30* Bodily sensation .31* .01 Active touch .20 .07 Hearing .28+ .13 Sight .13 .20 M (SD) 2.36 (4.36) 11.39 (8.62)

Note: *p ≤ .05; +p ≤ .10, 2-tailed.

were independent of each other, we explored their inter- active effect on the dependent variables (Table 3).

Specifically, we conducted three multiple regression analyses to investigate the effect of Difficulty of main- taining the relationship (continuous variable, centered), Preferred number of channels (continuous variable, cen- tered) and their interaction on the dependent measures. The means were calculated at 1 SD below and above the mean of Difficulty (Moderate Difficulty vs. High Diffi- culty) and at 1 SD below and above the mean of Number of channels of relating (Low Number of Channels vs. High Number of Channels). We labeled the lower level of difficulty (1 SD below the mean) ‘moderate difficulty’ instead of ‘low difficulty’, as only four participants had a difficulty score less than 1. The mean on difficulty was 3.60 and SD = 2.06. Moreover, given that all partici-

pants in this study were in a long-distance relationship, it is fair to say that most of them experienced, at the very minimum, moderate difficulty of relating to the part- ner. The results are consistent with this interpretation. In accord with emotional intensity theory and prior work (Miron et al., 2009), moderate difficulty of maintaining the relationship mobilised feelings of love, whereas high difficulty reduced love. Table 3 displays the means of the dependent variables in each of the four conditions.

Positive affect for the partner Difficulty had a significant negative effect on positive affect for the partner, β = −.57, p < .001, whereas Pre- ferred number of channels had a significant positive effect, β = .34, p = .003. As predicted by Hypothesis 2, the interaction of these two variables was also statistically sig- nificant, β = .26, p = .03. When LD intimates had a high multidimensionality orientation (i.e., preferred relating to the partner on a relatively higher number of channels), difficulty of maintaining the relationship did not have an effect on their positive affect for the partner, B = −.12, SE = .12, t(46) = −1.06, p = .29. However, when LD participants had a low multidimensionality orientation (i.e., preferred relating to the partner on a relatively lower number of channels), difficulty diminished positive af- fect for the partner, B = −.38, SE = .10, t(46) = −3.94, p < .001. When participants experienced high relation- ship difficulty, those with a low multidimensionality ori- entation felt significantly less positively toward the part- ner than those with a high orientation, B = .43, SE = .16,

TABLE 3

The Effect of Preferred Number of Channels and Relationship Difficulty on Variables of Interest in LD Relationships (Study 1)

Low channels High channels

Dependent measures Moderate difficulty High difficulty Moderate difficulty High difficulty

Positive affect 4.86a 3.31b 4.95a 4.45a Passionate love 8.86a 6.94b 9.56a 9.43a Commitment 9.77a 7.71b 9.99a 9.68a

Note: Row means with different scripts are statistically significant from each other at p < = .05. All measures were assessed on scales ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 10 (Extremely). Positive affect for the partner was measured on a scale running from −5 (Extremely negatively) to +5 (Extremely positively).

Journal of Relationships Research 71

ANCA M. MIRON ET AL.

t(46) = 2.79, p = .008. For those who reported mod- erate relationship difficulty, multidimensionality orienta- tion did not influence positive affect for the partner, B = .03, SE = .12, t(46) = .29, p = .77.

Passionate love Difficulty had a negative effect on feelings of love for the partner, β = −.31, p = .02, whereas Preferred number of channels had a positive effect, β = .48, p < .001. As predicted by Hypothesis 2, these effects were qualified by an interaction of the two variables, β = .24, p = .055. For high-orientation LD intimates, relationship difficulty did not influence feelings of love, B = −.03, SE = .09, t(46) = −.35, p = .73. However, for low-orientation LD participants, difficulty significantly diminished feelings of passionate love, B = −.47, SE = .15, t(46) = -3.18, p = .003. When participants experienced high relation- ship difficulty, those with a low orientation felt signifi- cantly less passionate love for the partner than those with a high orientation, B = .95, SE = .23, t(46) = 4.09, p < .001. For those who reported moderate relationship difficulty, multidimensionality orientation did not affect feelings of love, B = .27, SE = .23, t(46) = 1.16, p = .25.

Commitment Difficulty had a significant negative effect on commit- ment, β = −.38, p = .003, whereas Preferred number of channels had a significant positive effect, β = .41, p = .001. The interaction of these two variables was also significant, β = .29, p = .02. For high-orientation LD intimates, difficulty did not influence commitment to the partner, B = −.07, p = .95. However, for low-orientation LD participants, difficulty reduced commitment, B = −.50, SE = .12, t(46) = −4.32, p < .001. When partici- pants experienced high relationship difficulty, those with a low orientation felt significantly less committed to the partner than those with a high orientation, B = .82, SE = .18, t(46) = 4.63, p < .001. For those who reported moderate relationship difficulty, multidimensionality ori- entation did not affect their commitment, B = .09, SE = .20, t(46) = .45, p = .66.

Discussion Study 1 provided good support for our hypotheses. First, we found that the more time LD participants spent face- to-face with their partners, the more they preferred re- lating to the partner on multiple sensory channels. In addition, amount of time spent apart was correlated only with vicarious relating, indicating that when intimates are apart, they are more likely to prefer indirect sensory channels, such as relating to the partner by viewing his or her photo (Hypothesis 1).

Hypothesis 2 was also supported, as a multidimen- sionality orientation and difficulty of maintaining the

relationship had a significant combined effect on several relationship variables. Specifically, when partners experi- enced high difficulty, those with a high multidimension- ality orientation experienced more positive affect, love, and commitment than those with a low orientation. Con- versely, among low-orientation intimates, high difficulty significantly reduced positive affect for the partner, love, and commitment.

Some participants preferred to relate to their partner on only two or three channels, whereas others prefer full- dimensionality — an interaction using all senses. Impor- tantly, participants who preferred multiple channels were protected against perceived relationship hardships. These findings are encouraging because they suggest that coun- seling long-distance intimates to prefer interacting with the partner on multiple channels as opposed to only a few (e.g., touch and sight only), should help maintain their relationship by increasing feelings of love, positive affect, and commitment. It should also be noted that a multidimensionality orientation is more than simply valuing the relationship. We know this because partic- ipants’ multidimensionality orientation interacted with difficulty to influence self-reported importance of the re- lationship (‘How important is this relationship to you?’ on an 11-point scale ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 10 (Extremely), rather than producing a main effect on this outcome variable.1

Study 2 In Study 2, we explored the role of multidimensional- ity orientation within each type of relationship (LD vs. GC). We hypothesised that LD participants would be more oriented toward relating to the partner on multiple sensory channels than participants in GC relationships, because they may have learned to maintain the relation- ships through the use of multiple sensory channels. In their case, as one or more channels may be blocked, they may habitually seek alternative means to interact with the partner (Hypothesis 1).

Moreover, LD intimates would be especially likely to benefit from having a multidimensionality orientation compared to GC partners. As seen in Study 1, multi- dimensional relating can successfully buffer the effect of high difficulty inherent in LD relationships. Replicat- ing the findings of Study 1, we hypothesised that high- orientation LD intimates would experience greater feel- ings of love than low-orientation LD intimates. In con- trast, given their physical proximity to the partner, GC intimates’ positive feelings for the partner should be less affected by their multidimensionality orientation (Hy- pothesis 2). The measures were the same as in Study 1, with the exceptions noted below.

Participants Sixty male and female undergraduates participated in the study. The data from six participants who were no longer

72 Journal of Relationships Research

FULL-DIMENSIONALITY OF RELATING

involved in a romantic relationship were not included in the analyses. This left the data for 54 participants for analyses (11 males and 43 females). Thirty-one partic- ipants were in a long-distance relationship, whereas 23 were not.

Procedure Preferred number of channels We used the same items as in Study 1 to measure this construct. We added two more items to the Hearing index (‘I love hearing my partner’s voice on the phone’; ‘I love hearing my partner talk’; three items; α = .84) and one item to the Sight index (‘I enjoy looking at my partner’; two items, α = .59). The other channel measures were the same as in Study 1: Touch, 4 items, α = .77; Bodily sensation (scent, warmth, and texture), three items, α = .81; Active Touch, 3 items, α = .81; and Vicarious relating, seven items, α = .86. Multidimensionality Orientation was assessed as in Study 1.

Dependent measures The measures were the same as in Study 1: positive affect for the partner (1 item), passionate love (3 items, α = .77), and difficulty (2 items, α = .78). We also measured desire for future involvement with the partner (3 items, α = .86) to assess a more concrete form of commitment to the partner: When you think of the future, to what extent is this person involved?; If you do not currently live with this person, how much do you look forward to sharing a place with him/her?; If you do not currently live with this person, how much do you desire to live in the same place with him/her? on 11-point scales ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 10 (Extremely).

Results As predicted by Hypothesis 1, LD intimates (M = 5.39, SD = 1.05) preferred relating to their partner on signif- icantly more channels than GC participants (M = 4.39, SD = 1.83), F(1, 52) = 6.37, p = .02, η2 = .11. To test Hypothesis 2, we conducted several multiple regres- sion analyses to test the effect of Long-distance status (centered), Preferred number of channels (centered), and their interaction on the dependent variables. Table 4 dis- plays the means for all the measures.

Positive affect for the partner Long-distance status did not have a significant effect on positive affect, β = −.05, p = .63, whereas both Preferred number of channels and the interaction did, β = .51, p < .001 and β = .54, p < .001. LD participants with a high orientation experienced stronger positive affect toward the partner than did GC intimates with a high orienta- tion, B = .91, SE = .37, t(51) = 2.49, p = .02. In LD relationships, low-orientation intimates experienced less positive affect toward their partner than high-orientation

TABLE 4

The Effect of Preferred Number of Channels and Long-Distance Status on Variables of Interest in LD and GC Relationships (Study 2)

Low channels High channels

Dependent measures LD GC LD GC

Positive affect 3.39a 4.11a 4.85b 3.94a Passionate love 7.28a 8.16a 9.50b 8.39ab Desire for involvement 6.60a 8.03c 9.47b 9.02b Difficulty 5.74a 2.94b 1.61b 3.33b

Note: LD = Long-distance relationships; GC = Geographically-close relationships. Row means with different scripts are statistically significant from each other at p ≤ .05. All the measures were assessed on scales ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 10 (Extremely). Positive affect was assessed on a scale ranging from -5 (Extremely negatively) to +5 (Extremely positively).

participants, B = −.48, SE = .15, t(51) = -3.34, p = .002. The worst outcome was experienced by the LD participants with a low orientation, as they tended to experience less positive affect toward their partner than the GC intimates with a low orientation, B = .72, SE = .39, t(51) = 1.84, p = .07. Those involved in a GC relationship did not report differential levels of positive affect for the partner as a function of multidimensionality orientation, B = −.06, SE = .10, t(51) = −.54, p = .59.

Passionate love Long-distance status did not have a significant effect on feelings of love, β = −.04, p = .78, whereas both Pre- ferred number of channels and the interaction did, β = .47, p = .004 and β = .34, p = .03. In line with previous findings (Stafford & Reske, 1990), high-orientation LD participants tended to experience more love than high- orientation GC intimates, B = 1.11, SE = .57, t(51) = 1.93, p = .059. Low-orientation intimates did not differ as a function of relationship type, B = .89, SE = .61, t(51) = 1.44, p = .16. Among those involved in a LD relationship, those with a low orientation experienced less love than those with a high orientation, B = .74, SE = .24, t(51) = 3.09, p = .003. GC participants did not report differential levels of love as a function of multi- dimensionality orientation, B = .08, SE = .16, t(51) = .46, p = .65.

Desire for future involvement There was a significant effect of Preferred number of channels and of the interaction on this variable, β = .77, p < .001 and β = .35, p = .03, respectively. LD status did not have a significant effect, β = −.10, p = .47. Both GC and LD participants expressed greater de- sire for future involvement when they had a high mul- tidimensionality orientation than when they had a low orientation, B = .39, SE = .15, t(51) = 2.62, p = .01 and B = 1.13, SE = .28, t(51) = 3.98, p < .001, respec- tively. As shown in Table 4, the biggest difference was

Journal of Relationships Research 73

ANCA M. MIRON ET AL.

found between LD participants with a high orientation compared to those with a low orientation. In addition, among participants with a low orientation, LD partici- pants expressed lower desire for future involvement than GC intimates, B = 1.43, SE = .71, t(51) = 2.02, p = .05. For high-orientation intimates, long-distance status did not influence desire for future involvement, B = −.46, SE = .47, t(51) = −.97, p = .33. Additional Analyses We also assessed the effect of long-distance status and multidimensionality orientation on perceived difficulty of maintaining the relationship. Long-distance status did not have a significant effect on perceived difficulty, β = .10, p = .47, whereas both Preferred number of chan- nels as well as the interaction had significant effects, β = −.41, p = .007 and β = −.43, p = .006, respectively. As expected, among low-orientation participants, those in LD relationships experienced more difficulty maintain- ing the relationship than those in GC relationships, B = 2.79, SE = 1.12, t(51) = 2.49, p = .02. However, among high-orientation participants, those in LD relationships tended to experience less difficulty in maintaining the relationship than those in GC relationships, B = 1.72, SE = 1.34, t(51) = 1.66, p = .10. LD participants ex- perienced more difficulty maintaining the relationship when they had a low orientation than when they had a high orientation, B = 1.37, SE = .43, t(51) = 3.15, p = .003. GC participants did not report differential levels of difficulty as a function of their orientation, B = .13, SE = .29, t(51) = .44, p = .66.

Discussion The findings of Study 2 replicated the results of Study 1. Among LD participants, those with a low multidi- mensionality orientation experienced more relationship difficulty, lower feelings of love and positive affect, and lower desire for future involvement than those with a high orientation. On the other hand, when participants had a high multidimensionality orientation, those in LD relationships experienced more love and positive affect than GC intimates. Interestingly, high-orientation LD intimates tended to rate the difficulty of maintaining the relationship lower than did high-orientation GC partici- pants. These findings further support our hypothesis that a multidimensionality orientation buffers the negative ef- fect of relationship difficulty in LD relationships.

There were no differences between GC intimates with low and high multidimensionality orientation, except with regard to future involvement: low-orientation GC participants expressed lower desire for future involvement than did high-orientation GC participants. The fact that there were no differences among GC intimates with re- gard to their feelings for the partner as a function of the preferred number of channels may suggest that those who

are living in the same place may rely on one or two essen- tial sensory channels (e.g., touch and bodily sensations) to maintain the relationship. Those in LD relationships may not have access to these central sensory channels and may need to use multiple channels to satisfy the need for the other. Indeed, it is in LD relationships where having a high multidimensionality orientation had the greatest positive impact on feelings of love, positive affect for the partner, and desire for future involvement.

As we mentioned, there are two potential explanations for the preference for a restricted number of channels of relating. One explanation is that those preferring few channels of relating might not be sufficiently motivated to be in the relationship and do not invest time and energy to engage in multidimensional interactions with their part- ner. The second explanation is that some intimates may not be able or may not know how to use the various chan- nels of relating in their interactions with their partners. Future work should address this distinction. Irrespective of the explanation, the effect of a low multidimensionality orientation appears to be detrimental to the participants, and by extension to the relationship. Low-orientation LD participants reported the highest level of difficulty of maintaining the relationship of all the groups. This may indicate that they were motivated to continue the rela- tionship. They also experienced lower positive affect for the partner and love and were less likely to desire future involvement with their partners than the LD participants with a high orientation.

These findings also indicate that LD intimates, in particular, would benefit from counselling focusing on developing a stronger multidimensionality orientation. Future work should further explore the far-reaching clinical applications of these findings by designing coun- selling strategies specific to each couple’s multidimen- sional orientations. One interesting question is whether the matching of the couple members’ multidimensional orientations is more important than the sheer number of preferred sensory channels of relating of each partner. In other words, how essential is it for couple members to prefer the same channels (e.g., touch and bodily sen- sations), even though they would both be categorised as having a low orientation? We are currently exploring this empirical question in our laboratory.

Study 3 Because it may be difficult to establish the direction of causality between measured difficulty and other relation- ship measures in Study 1, in Study 3 we experimentally manipulated the perceived manageability of maintaining the LD (Relationship Manageability). Participants were asked to write about two recent occasions when they felt it was either somewhat difficult but possible or nearly im- possible to maintain the relationship with their partner.

74 Journal of Relationships Research

FULL-DIMENSIONALITY OF RELATING

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

elbissopmI ylraeNelbissoP

Low Number of Channels High Number of Channels

FIGURE 1

The experimental effect of the manageability manipulation and preferred number of channels of relating on positive affect for the partner. Positive affect was measured on a scale ranging from -5 (Extremely negatively) to +5 (Extremely positively).

In accord with emotional intensity theory and the em- pirical evidence reviewed in the introduction (Brehm, 1999; Miron et al., 2009; Miron et al., 2011; Wright et al., 1985), as well as prior work that suggests that inti- mates terminate relationships that are nearly impossible to maintain (Lloyd, Cate & Henton, 1984), we hypoth- esised that: (1) Manageability manipulation and multi- dimensional orientation will have an interactive effect on positive affect, love, and desire for future involvement. Specifically, when participants thought that the relation- ship was nearly impossible to maintain, they would experi- ence reduced positive affect for the partner and love, and reduced desire to be with the partner in the future. In con- trast, high-orientation participants should be protected against manageable relationship difficulties compared to low-orientation intimates. Thus, in the possible condition, high-orientation participants should experience a higher level of positive affect for the partner, love, and desire to be with the partner than those with a low orientation. (2) Positive affect for the partner will mediate the effect of the interaction of manageability manipulation and multidi- mensionality orientation on desired future involvement (Gongaza, Keltner, Londahl, & Smith, 2001), because positive affect for the partner will motivate the desire to be with the partner in the future.

Method Participants Participants were 40 male and female undergraduates who were involved in a LD relationship. Four partici- pants were excluded because they were no longer in a relationship. The data from four additional participants were excluded because they did not follow the instruc- tions. This left the data for 32 participants for analyses (11 males and 21 females). Preferred number of channels

was computed using the same procedure as in Studies 1 and 2.

Procedure Manipulation of relationship manageability Half of the participants were asked to take 10–15 min- utes to write about two very recent occasions when they found it somewhat difficult but possible to maintain their LD relationship with their current significant other. The other half of participants were asked to write about two recent occasions when they found it nearly impossible to maintain their current LD relationship. Participants fur- ther read that the occasions should pertain to things they were still dealing with at that moment.

Dependent measures Positive affect for the partner (1 item), passionate love (3 items, α = .87), and desire for future involvement with the partner (3 items, α = .98) were measured the same way as in Studies 1 and 2.

At the end of the study, participants were carefully and thoroughly debriefed.

Results and Discussion Multiple regression analyses were conducted to assess the effect of Manageability manipulation and Preferred num- ber of channels on the three dependent variables. As in Studies 1 and 2, when an interaction effect was found, we computed slopes at 1 SD above the mean (high number of preferred channels) and 1 SD below the mean (low number of preferred channels) in each of the two manageability conditions (see Figures 1, 2, and 3).

Positive affect for the partner The relationship manageability manipulation (coded as 1 = possible; 2 = nearly impossible) had a nonsignifi- cant negative effect, β = −.26, p = .09, and Preferred

Journal of Relationships Research 75

ANCA M. MIRON ET AL.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

elbissopmIylraeNelbissoP

Low Number of Channels High Number of Channels

FIGURE 2

The experimental effect of the manageability manipulation and preferred number of channels of relating on Passionate Love for the Partner. Passionate Love was measured on a scale ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 10 (Extremely).

number of channels had a significant positive effect, β = .47, p = .008 on positive affect for the partner. These effects were qualified by a significant interaction, β = −.57, p = .001. As predicted, there was no difference between possible and impossible conditions for the low- orientation participants, B = .56, SE = .42, t(29) = 1.34, p = .19 (see Figure 1). However, high-orientation partic- ipants reported greater positive affect for their partner in the possible condition than in the impossible condition, B = -1.13, SE = .34, t(29) = 3.36, p = .002. Moreover, when participants were induced to feel that maintain- ing the relationship was somewhat difficult but possible, high-orientation intimates experienced more positive af- fect for the partner than low-orientation participants, B = .47, SE = .13, t(29) = 3.84, p < .001. As expected, there was no significant difference in positive affect be- tween the two groups in the impossible condition, B = −.10, SE = .09, t(29) = −1.06, p = .30.

Passionate love The results on passionate love, although weaker, mirrored the results on positive affect for the partner (see Figure 2). Preferred number of channels had a significant positive effect, β = .68, p < .001, whereas Manageability had no significant effect, β = −.08, p = .61. The interaction did not reach statistical significance, β = −.28, p = .09, perhaps because of the small number of participants in the study. Given that the p-value for the interaction was less than .10, 2-tailed and we predicted the interaction, we further analyzed the simple effects. As predicted, there was no difference between low-orientation partners in the possible and nearly impossible conditions, B = .80, SE = .91, t(29) = .88, p = .39. When in the possible condition, high-orientation participants reported more love for the partner than low-orientation participants, B = .98, SE = .27, t(29) = 3.64, p = .001. Although in the expected direction, the difference between the Love means in the

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

elbissopmIylraeNelbissoP

Low Number of Channels High Number of Channels

FIGURE 3

The effect of the manageability manipulation and preferred number of channels of relating on Desire for Future Involvement with the Partner. This variable was measured on a scale ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 10 (Extremely).

76 Journal of Relationships Research

FULL-DIMENSIONALITY OF RELATING

possible (M = 9.06) and impossible conditions (M = 8.09) for high-orientation intimates was not significant, B = −.97, SE = .75, t(29) = -1.28, p = .21. Although the high-orientation participants in the impossible con- dition tended to report more love than low-orientation participants, the difference was not significant, B = .39, SE = .21, t(29) = 1.82, p = .08. Desire for future involvement The manipulation had no effect on desire for future in- volvement, β = −.14, p = .37, but preferred number of channels had a significant positive effect, β = .68, p < .001. The interaction was significant, β = −.36, p = .03 (see Figure 3). There was no difference between possible and impossible conditions for the low-orientation par- ticipants, B = 1.15, SE = 1.13, t(29) = 1.02, p = .31. However, in line with the predictions, high-orientation participants tended to report greater desire for future involvement in the possible than in the impossible con- dition, B = 1.83, SE = .94, t(29) = 1.95, p = .06. More importantly, in the possible condition, high-orientation participants experienced more desire for future involve- ment than low-orientation participants, B = 1.37, SE = .32, t(29) = 4.23, p < .001. As predicted, there was no difference in desire for future involvement between the two groups in the impossible condition, B = .37, SE = .24, t(29) = 1.53, p = .14. Thus, Hypothesis 1 received fairly good support.

Mediation analyses We also tested whether positive affect for the partner sig- nificantly mediated the effect of the interaction of the two independent variables on desire for future involvement (Hypothesis 2). The interaction had a significant effect on both positive affect and future involvement, β = −.57, p = .001, and β = −.36, p < .03, respectively. When the interaction, the main effects, and positive affect were entered in the equation, the interaction no longer had a significant effect on desire for future involvement, β = −.10, p = .55, whereas positive affect continued having a significant impact, β = .47, p = .008. The indirect effect was significant, 95% CI = (−2.41; −.03). Hypothesis 2 was thus supported.

In summary, in Study 3, we experimentally manip- ulated the perceived manageability of maintaining the relationship in LD relationships. Among those who were induced to feel that maintaining the relationship was difficult but manageable, high-orientation participants experienced more love, positive affect, and desire to be involved with the partner in the future than low- orientation participants. High-orientation intimates ex- perienced more positive affect for the partner and greater desire to be with the partner in the future when they thought that maintaining the relationship was possible, but not when they felt it was nearly impossible to main- tain the relationship. Moreover, positive affect for the

partner significantly mediated the effect of the interac- tion of the two variables on future involvement with the partner. Altogether, these findings highlight the impor- tance of considering the effect of perceived manageability of maintaining the relationship in conjunction with the intimates’ multidimensionality orientation when design- ing strategies to increase positive affect for the partner, and by implication, future involvement in the relation- ship.

General Discussion The findings of the three studies emphasise the detrimen- tal effects of high difficulty of maintaining the relation- ship and the beneficial role of a multidimensional ori- entation in LD romantic relationships. Across the stud- ies, we found that low-orientation LD intimates who appraise the relationship as very difficult experienced lower positive affect, love, and commitment than the low-orientation LD participants who appraised their rela- tionship as being moderately difficult to maintain. More- over, when maintaining the relationship was very difficult, LD participants with a high multidimensionality orien- tation experienced stronger positive affect and commit- ment than those with a low orientation. These findings corroborate earlier evidence that suggests that although LD relationships involve more hardships and obstacles, they last longer than do GC relationships (Stafford & Reske, 1990). In addition, Study 3 highlights an impor- tant aspect in LD relationships — the perceived manage- ability of maintaining the relationship: only when par- ticipants believed that the relationship was difficult but possible to maintain (as opposed to nearly impossible to maintain), a multidimensionality orientation was effec- tive in buffering the effect of difficulties on the relation- ship.

Implications and Future Work The current results are consistent with studies that have explored the communication means employed by those coping with geographic separation (Rohlfing, 1995). Gunn and Gunn (2000) found that LD partners who used the internet to communicate with each other re- ported more love and relational closeness than did LD intimates who did not use the internet. Telephone use was found to be positively associated with commitment and satisfaction in LD relationships (Dainton & Aylor, 2002). Finally, Holt and Stone (1988) found that LD partners who visited each other less than once a month were the least satisfied group in their study; they con- cluded that visiting at least once a month helps to com- pensate for the geographical distance between the part- ners. Thus, periodic visiting may provide opportunities for full-dimensional interactions and for the development of a multidimensionality orientation that can make the

Journal of Relationships Research 77

ANCA M. MIRON ET AL.

high difficulty of maintaining the relationship more man- ageable.

The findings of Study 1 concerning preference for vi- carious sensory relating are revealing in terms of how long-distance intimates manage temporary separations from their partner. The greatest difference between LD and GC intimates was with regard to the preference for this indirect sensory channel, followed by their preference for hearing. This may suggest that counseling strategies could focus on these channels to improve relationship experience in LD intimates. Another potential future av- enue of research could explore the differential importance of the various sensory channels in LD and GC couples, as the channels used and preferred in these two types of relationships are likely to differ.

In general, teaching intimates to relate to their part- ner via multiple sensory channels should increase positive affect toward the partner, passionate love, and desire for future involvement. Moreover, Study 3 suggests that ro- mantic partners must perceive maintaining the relationship as manageable, in order for a multidimensionality orien- tation to have a beneficial effect. This strategy should be especially beneficial for LD intimates who are most vul- nerable to the effects of relationship difficulty, and who at times may be more likely to appraise the relationship as being nearly impossible to maintain. Thus, counseling strategies should focus on developing a stronger multidi- mensional orientation in romantic partners coupled with empowering intimates to perceive relationship difficulties as manageable.

Future work could also focus on measuring the ac- tual behaviours and activities intimates engaged in with their romantic partners, coded by sensory channel type, when they have to cope with a life stressor or hardship. Some sensory channels, such as touch, may be more im- portant and used more frequently in stressful times than others (Coan, Schaefer, & Davidson, 2006). Although prior research has investigated the effects of long-distance separations from romantic partners on affect, behaviour, and physiology (Diamond, Hicks, & Otter-Henderson, 2008; Vormbrock, 1993), no prior research has focused on the role of a multidimensionality orientation during these separations. The senses are our most basic chan- nels of communication and their psychological functions in the context of close relationships still await further investigation.

A related research direction is the exploration of cul- tural differences in the preference and use of various sen- sory channels. Cultural norms affect how relationships are formed and maintained (Goodwin, 1999), emotion expe- rience and expression (Aune & Aune, 1996) and the use of touch in close relationships (Montagu, 1978). Recent work (Lee et al., 2012) suggests important differences between the United States and Brazil in their multidi- mensionality orientation and actual sensory behaviours. Brazilians reported a higher preference for sight, touch,

and bodily sensations than the United States participants and spent more time using active touch and bodily sensa- tions in their romantic relationships than their US coun- terparts.

The current findings highlight the role of intimates’ preference for multiple sensory channels of relating and have important implications for the study of the motiva- tional dynamics in romantic relationships, particularly in LD relationships. We are hopeful that our research will encourage a focus on the need for a complete other in so- cial interactions and the benefits of multidimensionality of relating in close relationships.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Dustin Dorshorst, Shannon Bierma, Patricia Wood, and Rachel Wozniak for their assistance with data collection.

Endnote 1 Both Difficulty and Preferred number of channels and their

interaction had a significant effect on relationship impor- tance, β = −.29, p = .02, β = .51, p < .001, and β = .27, p = .03, respectively. For high-orientation participants, dif- ficulty did not influence ratings of relationship importance, B = −.02, SE = .09, t(46) = −.18, p = .86. However, for low-orientation participants, difficulty decreased relationship importance, B = −.42, SE = .14, t(46) = -3.03, p = .004. Under high relationship difficulty, low-orientation partici- pants rated their relationship as being less important than high-orientation intimates, B = .90, SE = .14, t(46) = 4.66, p < .001. For those who reported moderate relationship difficulty, multidimensionality did not affect ratings of rela- tionship importance, B = .22, SE = .19, t(46) = 1.15, p = .26.

Appendix A (Preferred Channels of Relating)

Touch (4 items; α = .74; M = 6.91, SD = 1.36) Touching or holding my partner’s hand comforts me. I want to touch my partner all the time. If I don’t see my partner for a while, I crave for his/her touch. When my partner is not present, I crave physical contact with him/her.

Sight (M = 7.10, SD = 1.77) I enjoy watching my partner do even routine things (e.g., read the newspaper).

Hearing (M = 6.65, SD = 1.95) I yearn to hear my partner’s voice.

Bodily sensation (scent, warmth, and texture) (3 items; α = .78; M = 7.84, SD = 1.10) I love my partner’s scent. I love how my partner’s hands or face feel at touch.

78 Journal of Relationships Research

FULL-DIMENSIONALITY OF RELATING

I love how my partner’s body sometimes irradiates warmth.

Active touch (3 items; α = .83; M = 6.91, SD = 1.36) When my partner is in the same room with me, I feel like I want to hug him/her closely. I would kiss my partner every minute, if I could. I would hug my partner every minute, if I could.

Vicarious sensory relating (7 items; α = .80; M = 5.96, SD = 1.86): I keep an article of clothing of my partner’s that contains his/her scent. I listen to saved voicemails from my partner when I miss him/her. I often carry a photo of my partner with me. Everyday things remind me of my partner. I look at photos of my partner when I miss him/her. I like to keep things in my room/house that remind me of my partner. Certain smells remind me of my partner’s scent.

References Aune, K.S., & Aune, K.R. (1996). Cultural differences in the self-

reported experience and expression of emotions in relationships. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 67–81.

Brehm, J.W. (1999). The intensity of emotion. Personal- ity and Social Psychological Review, 3, 2-22. doi:10.1207/ s15327957pspr0301_1.

Brehm, J.W., & Self, E.A. (1989). The intensity of mo- tivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 109–131. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.40.020189.000545.

Coan, J.A., Schaefer, H S. & Davidson, R.J. (2006). Lending a hand: Social regulation of the neural response to threat. Psychological Science, 17, 1032–1039. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 9280.2006.01832

Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2002). Patterns of communication channel use in the maintenance of long-distance relationships, Communication Research Reports, 19, 118–129.

Diamond, L.M., Hicks, A.M., & Otter-Henderson, K.D. (2008). Every time you go away: Changes in affect, behavior, and phys- iology associated with travel-related separations from romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 385– 403. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.385.

Field, T. (2010). Touch for socioemotional and physical well-being: A review. Developmental Review, 30, 367–383.

Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2010). The science of interpersonal touch: An overview. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 246–259. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.10.004.

Gendolla, G.H.E., & Wright, R.A. (2005). Motivation in social settings: Studies of effort-related cardiovascular arousal. In J.P. Forgas, K. Williams, & B. von Hippel (Eds.), Social motivation: Conscious and nonconscious processes (pp. 71–90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gerstel, N., & Gross, H.E. (1982). Commuter marriages: A review. Marriages and Family Review, 5, 71–93.

Goodwin, R. (1999). Personal relationships across cultures. Florence, KY: Taylor & Frances/Routledge.

Gongaza, G.C., Keltner, D., Londahl, E.A., & Smith, M.D. (2001). Love and the commitment problem in romantic rela- tions and friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 247–262. doi: 10.I037//0022-3514.81.2.247.

Govaerts, K., & Dixon, D. (1988). ‘ . . . Until careers do us part’: Vocational and marital satisfaction in the dual-career commuter marriages. International Journal of the Advancement of Counsel- ing, 11, 265–281.

Gulledge, N., & Fischer-Lokou, J. (2003). Another evaluation of touch and helping behaviour. Psychological Reports, 92, 62–64. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2011.01.001

Gunn, D.O., & Gunn, C.W. (2000, September). The quality of elec- tronically maintained relationships. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association of Internet Research, Lawrence, KS.

Holt, P.A., & Stone, G.L. (1988). Needs, coping strategies, and coping outcomes associated with long-distance relationships. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 136–141.

Klinger, E. (1975). Consequences of commitment to and disen- gagement from incentives. Psychological Review, 82, 1–25.

Kock, N. (2004). The psychobiological model: Towards a new the- ory of computer-mediated communication based on Darwinian evolution. Organization Science, 15, 327–348.

Lee, L.L., Kufahl, K., Miron, A.M., Kapitz, S., de Matos, B.R., Goncalves, L., Stetter, K., & Rauscher, F. (2012, May). Cross- cultural differences in full-dimensionality of relating in romantic relationships. Conference poster presented at the Association for Psychological Science Meeting, Chicago.

Llyod, S.A., Cate, R.M., & Henton, J.M. (1984). Predicting pre-marital relationship stability: A methodological refinement. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 71–76.

Miron, A.M., Ferguson, M.A., & Peterson, A. (2011), Difficulty of refusal to assist the outgroup nonmonotonically affects the intensity of prejudice affect. Motivation and Emotion, 45, 484– 498.

Miron, A.M., Knepfel, D., & Parkinson, S. K. (2009). The sur- prising effect of partner flaws and qualities on romantic affect, Motivation and Emotion, 33, 261–276. doi: 10.1007/sl 1031- 009-9138-0.

Montagu, A. (1978). Touching: The human significance of the skin (2nd ed.), New York: Columbia University Press.

Motamedi, N. (2007). Keep in touch: A tactile-vision intimate interface. British Columbia: Simon Fraser University.

Roberson, B.F., & Wright, R.A. (1994). Difficulty as a determinant of interpersonal appeal: A social-motivational application of energization theory. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 373–388. doi: 10.1207/s15324834basp1503_10.

Rohlfing, M. (1995). ‘Doesn’t anybody stay in one place any- more?’ An exploration of the under-studied phenomenon of long-distance relationships. In J. Wood & S. Duck (Eds.), Under-studied relationships: Off the beaten track (pp. 173–196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stafford, L., & Reske, J.R. (1990). Idealization and communication in long-distance premarital relationships, Family Relations, 39, 274–279.

Stephen, T. (1986). Communication and interdependence in geo- graphically separated relationships. Human Communication Re- search, 13, 191-210.

Wicklund, R.A. (2004). The role of distance in valuing another person. In R.A. Wright, J. Greenberg, & S.S. Brehm (Eds.).

Journal of Relationships Research 79

ANCA M. MIRON ET AL.

Motivational analyses of social behavior. Building on Jack Brehm’s contributions to psychology (pp. 97–106). NJ, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wicklund, R.A. (2007). Mellommenneskelige forhold. A se, hore og berore. [Interpersonal relations: To see, hear, and touch]. Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget.

Vormbrock, J.K. (1993). Attachment theory as applied to wartime and job-related marital separation. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 122–144.

Wright, H.F. (1937). The influence of barriers upon strength of mo- tivation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Wright, R.A. (1998). Ability perception and cardiovascular re- sponse to behavioral challenge. In M. Kofta, G. Weary, & G. Sedek (Eds.), Control in action: Cognitive and motivational mech- anisms (pp. 197–232). New York: Plenum.

Wright, R.A., Toi, M., & Brehm, J.W. (1985). Difficulty and interpersonal attraction. Motivation and Emotion, 8, 327– 341.

80 Journal of Relationships Research

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.