Marriage & Family Review

ISSN: 0149-4929 (Print) 1540-9635 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmfr20

Staying Connected: An Examination of

Relationship Maintenance Behaviors in Long-
Distance Relationships

Jennifer M. Belus, Kimberly Z. Pentel, Matthew J. Cohen, Melanie S. Fischer &

Donald H. Baucom

To cite this article: Jennifer M. Belus, Kimberly Z. Pentel, Matthew J. Cohen, Melanie S.
Fischer & Donald H. Baucom (2018): Staying Connected: An Examination of Relationship
Maintenance Behaviors in Long-Distance Relationships, Marriage & Family Review, DOI:
10.1080/01494929.2018.1458004

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2018.1458004

Published online: 27 Apr 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wmfr20
MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW
https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2018.1458004

none defined

Staying Connected: An Examination of Relationship

Maintenance Behaviors in Long-Distance Relationships
Jennifer M. Belus , Kimberly Z. Pentel, Matthew J. Cohen, Melanie S. Fischer, and
Donald H. Baucom
Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Romantic long-distance relationships (LDRs) are becoming communication; couples;
increasingly prevalent as individuals seek educational and long distance relationships;
employment opportunities across the globe. LDRs create relationship maintenance
behaviors
unique challenges for couples, potentially impacting couple
and individual well-being. It is important to understand efforts
that LDR partners make to stay engaged, known as relationship
maintenance behaviors (RMBs), and whether common RMBs
facilitate or hinder relational and individual functioning. This
study has two goals: (a) to examine whether RMBs predict
relationship satisfaction and (b) to investigate whether relation-
ship satisfaction mediates the association between RMBs and
individual functioning. Eighty-seven adults in LDRs participated
in our online survey. Results indicated that RMBs predicted
relationship satisfaction, some negatively, and that relationship
satisfaction was a mediator between RMBs and individual
well-being.

Background
The landscape of many intimate relationships is changing with an ever-
increasing number of couples entering into long-distance relationships
(LDRs), typically because one partner is pursuing educational or employment
opportunities (Pistole, Roberts, & Chapman, 2010). Approximately one
million adult couples in the US report being in LDRs (Rhodes, 2002), as well
as 40% of college students (Merolla, 2010a). Although advances in how people
can stay connected at a distance may mitigate some of the difficulties of
LDRs (e.g., video chat, text messaging; Larsen, Urry, & Axhausen, 2006),
geographical distance between partners still creates unique challenges for
couples. Compared to geographically close relationships (GCRs), individuals
in LDRs tend to experience higher levels of stress both within and outside
of the relationship (Du Bois et al., 2016), as well as greater relational
uncertainty (Sahlstein, 2006).

CONTACT Jennifer M. Belus [email protected] Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of

North Carolina, Davie Hall CB # 3270, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3270, USA.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis
2 J. M. BELUS ET AL.

Thus, couples in LDRs face challenges to remain connected at a distance

and, as a result, often engage in behaviors while physically apart that are
intended to facilitate closeness, intimacy, and enhance overall couple and
individual well-being. Accordingly, the current paper re-examines literature
on these relationship enhancing behaviors, termed relationship maintenance
behaviors (RMBs), through a critical lens of broader couple research and
theory. Using this integrated framework, we propose a set of hypotheses
regarding which RMBs will positively impact individual or couple well-being,
and conduct an initial empirical test of this model using a sample of adult
individuals in LDRs.
A growing body of research has begun to investigate LDRs in order to
better understand how these relationships function. Research conducted with
adult couples in LDRs suggests that, overall, individuals in LDRs and GCRs
report comparable overall relationship satisfaction (Dargie, Blair, Goldfinger,
& Pukall, 2015; Du Bois et al., 2016; Kelmer, Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman,
2013). Research on LDRs has also been conducted with military couples
because deployment often results in geographic separation between partners.
Research with military couples highlights that communication before, during,
and after separation is important for couples to maintain a romantic relation-
ship (Carter & Renshaw, 2015) and that routine, daily communication with
one’s partner is beneficial, though arranging this requires purposeful planning
(Merolla, 2010b). Although Military LDR couples are unique due to restric-
tions on communication methods or frequency during deployments (Carter
& Renshaw, 2015) and high rates of individual psychopathology within this
population (Monson, Taft, & Fredman, 2009), these findings suggest that
ongoing communication is critical for relationship success. Taken together,
research with civilian and military LDR couples suggest that being in an
LDR does not necessarily result in reduced relationship satisfaction but that
consistent communication is critical for positive relationship outcomes.
However, more nuanced research is needed to examine the specific behaviors
and methods that partners use to stay connected with one another that may
differentiate which couples flourish and which experience relationship distress
while geographically separated.
Relationship maintenance behaviors, the specific behaviors that individuals
engage in to maintain closeness and intimacy in their relationships, may be
especially important within LDRs due to the repeated cycles of prolonged sep-
aration and reunions. Broadly, the cycles of separation in an LDR can be
viewed as a situational stressor, consistent with the stress and coping model
framework (Cohen & McKay, 1984; Cohen & Wills, 1985), requiring both
the couple as a unit and each individual partner to adapt and find new ways
of maintaining a sense of intimacy and closeness while coping with periods of
being geographically separated. Research on RMBs traditionally focused on
GCRs (Sigman, 1991). Specifically, Sigman’s (1991) theory of the continuity
 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW 3

of social relationships suggests that individuals involved in GCRs are able to

maintain a sense of continuity in their relationships despite not being in each
other’s physical co-presence at all times. In order to do this, geographically
close partners engage in specific behaviors before, during, and after brief per-
iods of separation throughout a given day to manage the physical separation
and remain connected (Gilbertson, Dindia, & Allen, 1998; Sigman, 1991). For
example, partners may call each other during the day when each person is at
work to check in and see how the other is doing. Thus, there are different
kinds of behaviors (e.g., those performed alone or with others) that
individuals use to maintain a sense of closeness and continuity in their
relationship, and these can be implemented at different time points around
the separation.
Merolla (2010a, 2012) extended this conceptualization of RMBs to fit the
dynamics of LDRs. Specifically, he posits that LDRs are sustained through a
combination of relationship-oriented cognitions (intrapersonal RMBs), inter-
actions with one’s partner (dyadic RMBs), and communication with one’s
broader social network regarding the relationship (network RMBs). RMBs
at the three dimensions can occur at three time points (before, during, or after
separation) resulting in a nine-factor model. This model and the prevailing
conceptualization of RMBs presupposes that enacting a greater number of
RMBs reflects more effort and commitment to the relationship and, therefore,
would be beneficial for the well-being of the couple and the individual.
Because the current investigation draws heavily from Merolla’s conceptualiza-
tion, the nine dimensions of Merolla’s model, as well as the content of each
dimension, are presented in Table 1.
The first empirical investigation of Merolla’s (2010a) nine-factor model was
conducted with a sample of college students in LDRs, and Merolla (2012)
found that only certain RMBs were associated with increased intimacy and
relationship satisfaction, specifically, intrapersonal RMBs both before and
during separation. However, other findings within this study demonstrated
that increased use of other RMBs was associated with poorer relationship out-
comes. Markedly, a greater number of dyadic RMBs before separation were
associated with lower levels of relationship satisfaction, and higher levels of
network RMBs after separation were also associated with reduced relationship
satisfaction, as well as reduced intimacy. These findings suggest that more
RMBs are not unequivocally associated with greater beneficial relationship
outcomes.
The theoretical work by Epstein and Baucom (2002) on adaptive couple
functioning within a cognitive-behavioral framework and empirical findings
that support this perspective may add critical depth to the Merolla (2010a,
2012) model. Epstein and Baucom’s (2002) model proposes that relationship
functioning for any given couple is a result of influences at the individual,
couple, and environmental levels. These three levels are consistent with those
4
Table 1. Dimensions of Merolla’s (2010a) conceptualization of relationship maintenance behaviors, content of each dimension, and adaptiveness based on the
cognitive-behavioral model.
Dimension Content covered in the measure Adaptive/maladaptive for the individual or couple according to
cognitive-behavioral model of relationship functioning
Before Intrapersonal Imagining what the upcoming separation will be like Adaptive because it can help the individual develop realistic
separation expectations for what the upcoming separation will be like as
well as prepare for it psychologically
Dyadic Couple’s communication and logistical preparation for the Adaptive because the couple is communicating about the
upcoming separation upcoming separation and engaging in preparations as a unit
Network Interacting with others to describe instrumental ways the Adaptive because the individual is utilizing his/her social
individual plans to prepare for the upcoming support network, during a time of greater relational
geographic separation, express concerns about the uncertainty
separation, and solicit advice about how to best handle
the upcoming period of separation
During Intrapersonal Intentionally reminding oneself about the partner or Adaptive because it can increase the saliency of the relationship
separation relationship, as well as hopeful relationship and partner while partners are separated, as well as maintain a positive
expectancies perspective on the relationship or partner
Dyadic Frequency with which the couple communicate via Adaptive because the couple is maintaining contact, and likely
various modalities while at a distance enhancing their connection while separated
Network Sharing positive stories with others about the relationship Adaptive because the individual is utilizing his/her social
and one’s partner support network, during a time of greater relational
uncertainty
After separation Intrapersonal Processing the separation on one’s own Maladaptive because at this point, the couple has been reunited
and are in each other’s presence. The individual processing
may be at the expense of processing with the partner
Dyadic How the couple spends time together, how they Adaptive because the couple is building new connections
processed the separation, and discussion of their future together, processing the separation in a dyadic fashion, as
together well as displaying commitment by considering their future
together.
Network Processing the separation with other people in one’s Maladaptive because processing the separation may be at the
network expense of spending time and reflecting on the separation
directly with one’s partner. The information shared at this
stage also appears ruminative, with a primary focus on
negative aspects of the separation
 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW 5

proposed by Merolla (e.g., individual, dyadic, and network levels).

Importantly, the cognitive-behavioral model of couple functioning
highlights that a functional analysis of the adaptiveness of thoughts and
behavior at the individual, couple, and environmental levels sheds light on
whether a given behavior is beneficial or healthy (e.g., whether it fosters
closeness for the couple or is associated with better individual quality of
life). In other words, the CBCT model does not presuppose that couples in
LDRs who enact a greater number of RMBs will globally experience more
positive relational outcomes; instead, the behavior itself must be adaptive in
that context and time point for both individuals and the relationship more
broadly.
Overall, the application of the CBCT model of relationship functioning
to Merolla’s nine-factor model of RMBs suggests that the overall increased
use of RMBs in LDRs would not necessarily result in improved relational
outcomes. Accordingly, there is a need in the literature to evaluate the
extent to which enacting RMBs at each level and temporal phase is
adaptive or maladaptive for both the relationship and the individual partners.
Below, specific tenets of the cognitive-behavioral model that pertain to the
Merolla model of RMBs are discussed insofar as they inform current study
hypotheses.
At the individual level, the cognitive-behavioral model broadly posits that
negative cognitions about one’s relationship (e.g., maladaptive attributions or
unrealistic expectancies about one’s partner) may play a deleterious role for
the individual and couple’s well-being. At the dyadic level, the cognitive-
behavioral framework highlights the importance of regular and positive com-
munication (e.g., being warm, supportive with one’s partner; constructive
problem-solving). Finally, the environmental aspect of the cognitive-
behavioral model posits that environmental resources (e.g., social support)
and stressors (e.g., work-related difficulties) impact the well-being of the
couple. For couples in LDRs, it may be especially important to capitalize on
environmental resources given that physical distance between partners can
make feeling supported a greater challenge (Sahlstein, 2006). Thus, overall,
applying this framework to the content of the nine-factor model of RMBs
for LDRs suggests that several of Merolla’s factors would be considered
maladaptive using the cognitive-behavioral framework (see Table 1). Specifi-
cally, intrapersonal and network RMBs after separation are viewed as
maladaptive, as both types of RMBs detract from the couple processing the
separation and re-connecting with one another during the critical time of
being reunited.
Whereas the literature would benefit from greater exploration of RMBs on
relationship outcomes, such behaviors might also impact each individual,
and little is known about how RMBs affect individual partner well-being.
Examining individual functioning in the context of LDRs is very important
6 J. M. BELUS ET AL.

because partners must operate more independently, as compared to couples in

GCRs, since they are physically separated. Operating independently while still
being part of a couple could potentially result in a greater strain on their indi-
vidual well-being. Moreover, as discussed earlier, the behaviors that a couple
engages in while in an LDR have the potential to create distance in their
relationship, or bring the couple closer together as they unite around a shared
stressor of geographic distance. In turn, the resulting relationship environ-
ment is likely to impact each individual and their own well-being, consistent
with previous research demonstrating a positive association between relation-
ship satisfaction and individual mental health (Whisman, 2007). Overall then,
engaging in adaptive RMBs likely enhances individual functioning indirectly,
through their effect on enhanced relationship functioning. For example, if
RMBs successfully foster a sense of closeness and security in the relationship,
the individual partners in the relationship may subsequently experience a bet-
ter quality of life. Thus, relationship functioning may serve as a mediator in
the association between RMBs and individual functioning, and this may be
particularly salient for couples in LDRs.
On the other hand, some RMBs can potentially result in relationship
distress, as suggested by Merolla’s (2012) findings. Relationship distress can
function as a diffuse, chronic stressor, and in turn, can negatively impact
an individual’s functioning (Whisman, 2007). Only a few studies to date
have examined how the use of certain RMBs may impact the well-being of
individual partners, with mixed findings. Merolla (2012) found that
intrapersonal RMBs used before and during separation were related to less
individual stress, whereas intrapersonal RMBs used after being reunited
with one’s partner were associated with greater individual stress. This
suggests that, similar to the findings on the role of RMB in relationship
functioning, RMBs do not unequivocally have a positive impact on individual
functioning.
Taken together, these findings on relationship and individual outcomes,
paired with cognitive-behavioral couple research and theory, serve as the
foundation of a model that highlights the impact of RMBs on couple and
individual functioning. Baker, McNulty, Overall, Lambert, and Fincham
(2012) explored a component of this model in examining whether relation-
ship satisfaction was a mediator of the impact of RMBs on individual sadness
(Baker et al., 2012). The hypothesis of the study was consistent with the
notion that RMBs directly impact relationship functioning, which in turn
impacts individual well-being; however, the investigators did not find that
relationship satisfaction mediated this association. One potential complication
with this investigation was that all RMBs were combined into one category,
possibly resulting in overall null effects due to opposing influences of RMBs
(i.e., some RMBs having positive effects, whereas others have more adverse
effects).
 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW 7

In conclusion, it appears that the utility of Merolla’s (2010a, 2012) model

on the use of RMBs in LDRs can be enhanced through examining the adap-
tiveness of specific RMBs, which can be conceptualized through a cognitive-
behavioral framework of relationship functioning (Epstein & Baucom, 2002).
In addition, only limited research has been conducted with regard to how
RMBs impact individual functioning, and only one study has examined the
potential role of relationship functioning as a mediator of this association.
However, the previous study that examined a mediation model did not differ-
entiate among RMBs that potentially had a positive versus negative impact on
the relationship, highlighting the need for further research. Finally, much of
the previous research on LDRs and RMBs has almost exclusively focused
on college-age samples (e.g., Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Merolla, 2012; Stafford
& Canary, 1991) or military couples (e.g., Carter & Renshaw, 2015; Merolla,
2010b) and has not been adequately investigated in a broader adult popu-
lation. Thus, the current study has two primary aims, investigated in a
non-college, civilian adult sample: (a) evaluate a model of RMBs on relation-
ship satisfaction, whereby not all RMBs are expected to have uniformly
positive effects on the relationship, and (b) examine the impact of RMBs
on individual functioning through their effect on relationship satisfaction.
Also given the general lack of information regarding what couples actually
do to stay in touch while separated, a secondary aim of this study is to gather
descriptive data on the communication behaviors that couples in LDRs
engage in while geographically separated.
With regard to the first aim, examining the adaptiveness of RMBs through
the cognitive-behavioral framework suggests that not all RMBs using
Merolla’s (2012) nine-factor model are uniformly adaptive. In order to test
this theory, our analyses will examine the nine factors separately. It is
hypothesized that intrapersonal and network RMBs after separation, as
defined in Merolla’s model and subsequent measure, are maladaptive for
relationship satisfaction, as both types of RMBs detract from the couple pro-
cessing the separation together or developing new connections during the
critical time of being reunited. All other RMBs are expected to have a positive
association with relationship satisfaction.
As for the second aim of examining the relationship between RMBs and
individual functioning, it is expected that relationship satisfaction will mediate
this association. That is, it is anticipated that RMBs will predict relationship
functioning, and relationship functioning in turn will predict individual
functioning. Consistent with our first hypothesis, intrapersonal and network
RMBs after separation will likely have a negative impact on individual
functioning, namely psychological distress and life satisfaction, through
decrements in relationship satisfaction; however, all other RMBs are expected
to have a positive association with individual functioning through enhance-
ments in relationship satisfaction.
8 J. M. BELUS ET AL.

Methods
Participants and procedure
Participants were recruited from a large university in the southeastern United
States through an online listserv that reaches faculty, staff, and students. For
the current investigation, participants were eligible to participate in the study
if they had been in a committed romantic relationship for at least 6 months,
were in a self-defined LDR at the time of the study (as per the participant’s
definition, allowing for a range of physical geographic distance), and were
at least 18 years of age. Participants were excluded from the study if they were
a full-time undergraduate student, given that college samples represent a
specific developmental phase in the lives of young adults. Accordingly, the
goal of the current study was to extend the empirical work on LDRs in a
non-college sample. Moreover, data for the study were only collected from
one member of the couple, so individuals with partners who were already
participating were ineligible to participate. Eligible participants completed
an online survey and were provided with a $10 gift card for an online retailer
upon completion of the study.1 The study was approved by an institutional
review board in the United States.
The final sample consisted of 87 participants and was predominately
female (83.9%), with an average age of 31.50 years (SD = 11.02, ranging from
18 to 61 years old). The majority of the sample was White/Caucasian (69.0%),
with 13.8% self-identifying as African-American, 11.5% as Asian-American,
8.1% as Hispanic, and 4.6% identifying as “other” ethnic backgrounds.2
The sample was well educated, with 79.3% reporting a Bachelor’s degree or
above (ranging from high school/GED to doctoral or professional degree),
and a median reported income bracket of $10,000–$34,999 (range $0 to
≥$250,000).
The sample was primarily engaged in opposite-sex relationships (90.8%).
Two women (2.3%) and one man (1.2%) reported being in a same-sex
relationship, and five women (5.7%) identified as bisexual but did not report
the gender of their current partner. The average length of relationship was
4.10 years (SD = 4.00, range 0.50 to 21.50 years). With respect to geographic
distance between partners, participants were between 25 to 8,045 miles away
from their partner (M = 1,088, SD = 1,568) and reported being in the long-dis-
tance portion of their relationship for 1.83 years on average (SD = 1.74, range
0.33 to 10.75 years). In addition, participants reported seeing their partners on
average every 9.12 weeks (SD = 14.43, range 1 to 100 weeks) with each visit
lasting 5.82 days on average (SD = 10.74, range 1 to 90 days). Finally, 50.6%
of participants reported that they were geographically separated for their
partners for a predetermined period of time, whereas 6.9% reported their
separation was indefinite, and 42.5% did not know.
 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW 9

Materials
Relationship maintenance behaviors
Relationship maintenance behaviors were assessed using the 95-item self-
report measure developed by Merolla (2012), designed specifically to capture
behaviors that partners engage in to maintain relational continuity while in an
LDR. Participants rated each RMB on a Likert-scale, ranging from 1 (not at all
characteristic of me) to 7 (very characteristic of me). The measure assesses
RMBs during three distinct time periods in an LDR: before a geographic
separation, during a geographic separation, and after being reunited for a
short period of time (during the overall LDR). Moreover, at each of these time
points, RMBs are differentiated on the basis of the interactional style of the
behavior (i.e., intrapersonal, dyadic, or network) resulting in 9 subscales
containing 6–17 items3; the subscale total is derived by taking the average
of the items. Cronbach’s alpha for the subscales in the current sample ranged
between 0.69 and 0.96.

Relationship satisfaction
Relationship satisfaction was measured using the couple satisfaction index,
16-item version (CSI-16; Funk & Rogge, 2007). The CSI-16 is a self-report
measure of relationship satisfaction, with total scores ranging from 0 to 81.
Scores below 52 are indicative of clinically significant relationship distress.
Previous research has shown the CSI-16 has strong psychometric properties,
including strong convergent and construct validity with other measures of
relationship satisfaction, and excellent reliability (Funk & Rogge, 2007).
In the current sample, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.95.

Psychological distress
Psychological distress was assessed using the 21-item version of the
depression anxiety and stress scale (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995), with items
rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (did not apply to me at all) to
3 (applied to me very much, or most of the time). Prior research indicates that
the 21-item version has the same factor structure as the full 42-item version
(Antony, Bieling, Cox, Enns, & Swinson, 1998), which has three subscales:
depression, anxiety, and stress. Each scale has seven items; in the current
study, items were combined to create one scale for overall distress, and the
Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89.

Life satisfaction
Life satisfaction was assessed using the five-item self-report measure satisfac-
tion with life scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). Respondents
indicated the extent to which they agreed with statements describing global
10 J. M. BELUS ET AL.

satisfaction with their current life on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with higher scores representing
greater life satisfaction. Cronbach’s alpha in the current sample was 0.87.

Communication behaviors
A questionnaire was developed for the current study in order to assess the
communication behaviors that partners engage in while separated during
the LDR. Items probed the various modes of communication used (video call,
phone, text message, social media, email, instant message, and letters) and the
frequency of use for each mode, the frequency of communication on average
(out of 30 days), the frequency of contact initiated by each individual partner,
the emotional valence of contact via each mode (primarily positive, neutral, or
negative), and the significance of content discussed as rated on a scale from
1 (very insignificant) to 7 (very significant).

Results
Data analytic strategy
In order to describe the sample and characterize how individuals in LDRs
communicate with their partners at a distance, descriptive statistics on the
communication variables were examined and are presented in Table 2.
Bivariate correlations between the variables of interest were also calculated
and are presented in Table 3. The primary aim of the study, to examine
whether RMBs predicted relationship satisfaction, was investigated using
multiple linear regression analyses. The nine RMBs were entered as predictors
in one step, using relationship satisfaction as the outcome. For participants
with missing items on any of the predictor or outcome variables used in

Table 2. Modes of communication and frequency of use.

# of Days # of Days
participant partner
% of
initiates initiates Significance Primary valence of
sample
contact contact of topics+ topics (% of sample)*
using
Mode mode M SD M SD M SD Positive Negative Neutral
Video call 74.71 9.29 8.78 9.35 8.79 5.28 1.36 95.31 1.56 3.13
Phone 95.40 16.11 9.55 14.99 10.27 4.68 1.41 84.15 – 15.85
Text message 86.21 23.76 8.44 23.56 9.34 4.28 1.48 74.67 1.33 24.00
Social media 43.02 8.95 8.51 8.08 8.42 3.24 1.59 75.68 – 24.32
Email 70.11 8.96 7.96 7.36 8.31 3.89 1.58 54.10 1.64 44.26
Instant 49.43 17.30 10.41 16.33 10.76 4.28 1.59 79.07 – 20.93
message
Letters 43.68 2.32 1.04 2.92 1.48 4.63 1.81 97.30 – 2.70
Note. +The range for this variable is 1–7, with higher scores representing more significant topics.
*Of the subsample who reported using the mode of communication, these values represent the percentage
of the sample who reported the primary valence of the conversations via each mode.
 Table 3. Correlations between outcome variables and relationship maintenance behaviors.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. CSI 64.56 10.30 –
2. DASS 5.74 6.79 −0.31** –
3. SWLS 25.05 6.09 0.43*** −0.31** –
4. Before-intra 4.88 1.06 0.35** −0.03 0.13 –
5. Before-dya 5.22 1.17 0.34** 0.07 0.08 0.58*** –
6. Before-net 3.84 1.58 0.17 0.15 −0.07 0.43*** 0.58*** –
7. During-intra 5.35 1.15 0.41*** 0.13 0.07 0.58*** 0.62*** 0.58*** –
8. During-dya 4.47 0.82 0.40*** 0.07 0.10 0.35** 0.46*** 0.27* 0.38*** –
9. During-net 4.96 1.69 0.15 0.20 −0.05 0.25* 0.42*** 0.81*** 0.46*** 0.33** –
10. After-intra 5.36 1.31 0.15 0.16 0.08 0.58*** 0.53*** 0.50*** 0.63*** 0.41*** 0.28* –
11. After-dya 5.93 0.99 0.34** 0.00 0.27* 0.28* 0.45*** 0.32** 0.53*** 0.36** 0.20+ 0.50*** –
12. After-net 3.11 1.70 0.05 0.10 0.02 0.46*** 0.47*** 0.81*** 0.50*** 0.15 0.62*** 0.46*** 0.22\+ –
Note. CSI, couple satisfaction index; DASS, depression, anxiety, and stress scale; Dya, dyadic; Intra, intrapersonal; Net, network; SWLS, satisfaction with life scale.
+
p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

11
12 J. M. BELUS ET AL.

the regression analyses, multiple imputation was first conducted to estimate

missing item values so that valid total scores could be calculated and all
available data could be used (Rubin, 1987). This resulted in a total sample size
of 80. For the current study, data were imputed 20 times using the Markov
chain Monte Carlo method, given the arbitrary missing data pattern of
individual items on the scales of interest (Yuan, 2000). Regression analyses
were conducted using SAS Software Version 9.4.
In order to test the secondary hypotheses of the study, mediation models
were conducted to assess whether relationship satisfaction mediated the effect
of RMBs on individual well-being, specifically individual psychological dis-
tress and life satisfaction. Tests of mediation were conducted using the boot-
strapping procedure outlined by Preacher and Hayes (2008) which allows for
the simultaneous evaluation of the total effect (effect of independent variable
on the dependent variable without controlling for the mediators), direct effect
(effect of independent variable on the dependent variable controlling for each
of the mediators), and indirect effects (effect through mediation) of variables
in the model. The analyses were conducted using Hayes and Preacher’s (2014)
SPSS mediate macro, which allowed for testing multiple predictor variables in
one model (SAS version unavailable). This procedure generates 95% confi-
dence intervals (CI) for each of the indirect effects and bias corrected (BC)
CIs are then used to determine whether each effect is significant. If the BC
CI does not pass through zero, then the indirect effect is considered signifi-
cant at p < 0.05. In these models, indirect effects are examined regardless of
whether a significant direct effect exists (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). A smaller
sample size was used for this procedure due to the fact that only complete data
can be used with this procedure.

Descriptive analyses
Descriptive analyses revealed that the three most common methods of com-
munication participants used while in a LDR (on average, over the course of
the LDR; see Table 2) were phone, text message, and video call, all strategies
that allow for immediate feedback and interaction with a partner. The least
frequently used mode of communication was letters via postal mail, although
43.7% of the sample still endorsed using this method to communicate at some
point during their LDR. Across the various modes of communication, parti-
cipants on average reported initiating contact with their partners 25.29 days
each month (SD = 6.55), and reported to be in contact with their partners
on 28.64 days (SD = 4.13) on average, regardless of who initiated contact.
In terms of initiating contact across the various modes of communication,
participants reported they initiated contact significantly more frequently than
their partners via email [t (58) = 2.05, p = 0.045], but initiated contact signifi-
cantly less frequently than their partners via letter [t (37) = −2.28, p = 0.029].
 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW 13

Moreover, 94.25% of the sample reported being in contact with their partners
multiple times per day; for this subset of the sample, contact between partners
occurred on average 6.00 times per day (SD = 6.17) across all modes of
communication. In terms of the valence of topics discussed, participants
overwhelmingly reported that the overall tone of the topics discussed via the
various modes was generally positive or neutral. Only one participant in the
sample reported that conversations via video call, text messages, or email were
primarily negatively-valenced, meaning that the tone or content of the conver-
sation was negative. Finally, across the various modes of communication, part-
icipants tended to report the topics discussed were of moderate importance.
Overall, it appears that individuals in this sample were in communication with
their partners most days each month and favored modes of communication
that allowed them to communicate and receive responses from their partners
quickly. The majority of the interactions were positive or neutral in nature.

Regression and mediation analyses

Examining the results of the overall regression model4 indicated that as a
whole, RMBs significantly predicted relationship satisfaction, F(9) = 4.74,
p < 0.001,5 adjusted R2 = 0.30. Examining the individual predictors in the
regression model revealed that greater levels of intrapersonal RMBs before
separation and during separation, as well as greater levels of dyadic RMBs
during separation were related to higher levels of relationship satisfaction.
However, greater use of intrapersonal RMBs after being reunited was found
to be significantly associated with lower levels of relationship satisfaction.
Results are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Model results of relationship maintenance behaviors predicting relationship

satisfaction.
Relationship satisfaction
Predictor Ba SE t
Before
Intrapersonal 2.78 1.29 2.16*
Dyadic 0.17 1.19 0.14
Network 1.15 1.39 0.83
During
Intrapersonal 2.93 1.35 2.18*
Dyadic 3.48 1.46 2.39*
Network −0.30 1.06 −0.29
After
Intrapersonal −3.13 1.10 −2.84**
Dyadic 1.87 1.26 1.48
Network −1.68 1.01 −1.66+
Note. aOnly unstandardized regression coefficients are presented here. Standardized regression coefficients
are not calculated because they are less meaningful when using multiple imputation due to the use of
multiple datasets with different standard deviations.
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
14 J. M. BELUS ET AL.

In order to test the second aim of the study, the four subscales of RMBs
(intrapersonal before separation, intrapersonal during separation, intraperso-
nal after separation, and dyadic during separation) that were significant
predictors of relationship satisfaction in the aforementioned regression analy-
sis were subsequently included in the mediation models predicting individual
functioning (operationalized as individual psychological distress as well as
individual life satisfaction) via relationship satisfaction. Separate models
were conducted to predict the outcomes of individual life satisfaction and
individual psychological distress.
The indirect effects of the mediation analyses are presented in Table 5.
For the model predicting life satisfaction, the total effect was not
significant F(4, 64) = 0.24, p > 0.05 nor was the direct effect, F(4, 63) = 0.98,
p > 0.05. However, the overall indirect effect was significant, as were all the
specific indirect effects. These findings reveal that (a) before separation
intrapersonal RMBs, (b) during separation intrapersonal RMBs, and (c) during
separation dyadic RMBs were all related to greater relationship satisfaction,
which in turn was related to greater levels of life satisfaction. However,
intrapersonal RMBs after separation showed the opposite pattern, such that
greater intrapersonal RMBs after separation was related to lower levels of
relationship satisfaction, which in turn was related to lower levels of life
satisfaction.
The model examining the indirect effects of RMBs on psychological distress
through relationship satisfaction revealed a similar pattern of findings
overall, with a few exceptions. The model total effect was also not significant,
F(4, 59) = 1.39, p > 0.05 nor was the direct effect F(4, 58) = 2.20, p > 0.05. In
addition, the overall indirect effect of this model was not significant, which
differs from the prior model predicting individual life satisfaction. However,
three of the four specific indirect effects of RMBs on psychological distress
were significant (during separation intrapersonal RMBs, during separation
dyadic RMBs, and after separation intrapersonal RMBs) and exhibited the
same pattern as above with regard to directionality of the effects; greater
use of intrapersonal and dyadic RMBs during separation were beneficial
for relationship satisfaction, which in turn was associated with lower

Table 5. Mediation results of relationship maintenance behaviors on life satisfaction and

psychological distress through relationship satisfaction.
Life satisfaction Psychological distress
Relationship
maintenance behavior Indirect effect (SE) BC CI Indirect effect (SE) BC CI
Before-intrapersonal 0.79 (0.39) 0.08 1.65 −1.89 (1.75) −7.17 0.03
During-intrapersonal 0.93 (0.53) 0.18 2.28 −2.02 (1.82) −7.30 −0.03
During-dyadic 1.29 (0.68) 0.22 2.90 −3.10 (2.18) −9.77 −0.28
After-intrapersonal −0.99 (0.58) −2.39 −0.10 2.34 (1.97) 0.02 7.72
Total 0.08 (0.04) 0.02 0.15 −0.18 (0.16) −0.54 0.01
Note. BC CI, bias corrected confidence interval; SE, standard error.
 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW 15

psychological distress. On the other hand, a greater use of intrapersonal RMBs

after separation was associated with more psychological distress. However, in
this model, the specific indirect effect of the before separation intrapersonal
RMBs on psychological distress was not significant.
Overall, greater use of intrapersonal and dyadic RMBs during separation
from one’s partner was related to improved individual and relationship
well-being, namely higher life satisfaction and lower psychological distress
via increases in relationship satisfaction. The same pattern of findings was
evident for intrapersonal RMBs used before geographic separation from one’s
partner, but only as it related to life satisfaction. Finally, on the contrary,
greater use of intrapersonal RMBs after being reunited with one’s partner
boded poorly for life satisfaction and psychological distress through
decrements in relationship satisfaction.

Discussion
The current study re-examined the prevailing conceptualization of RMBs in
LDRs based on the model put forth by Merolla (2010a) through an alternative,
more nuanced framework based on the cognitive-behavioral model of
relationship functioning (Epstein & Baucom, 2002). The goal of the current
study was to examine the adaptiveness of the behaviors and cognitions
enacted by partners before, during, and after geographic separation and at
the intrapersonal, dyadic, and network levels. This study utilized an adult,
non-undergraduate civilian sample in LDRs in order to better understand
how these couples maintain close romantic relationships.
First, the descriptive data collected revealed that participants report being
in contact with their partners almost every day during the geographic separ-
ation. For the vast majority of the sample who are in contact with their part-
ners more than once per day, participants reported being in touch with their
partners on average six times daily. Prior literature has distinguished between
communication that offers immediate responses versus delayed responses
(e.g., phone versus email; Carter & Renshaw, 2016). Individuals in this sample
primarily used immediate methods of communication that offered a visual of
their partner (e.g., video call); they also tended to use methods that offered
convenience and speed (e.g., text messaging and phone). The use of phone
and video in this sample as two of the major methods of communication is
consistent with prior literature findings that being able to see or hear one’s
partner may deepen the sense of connectedness in that moment (Boase &
Wellman, 2006). It is important to note that the average age of this sample
was approximately 31 years old. Compared to an older sample, our sample
may have included more text messaging and social media, but perhaps less
than would be expected with a collegiate sample (Morey, Gentzler, Creasy,
Oberhauser, & Westerman, 2013). Moreover, the topics discussed by partners
16 J. M. BELUS ET AL.

while geographically separated were of moderate importance overall, and the

vast majority of topics were either neutral or positive (topics were rarely nega-
tive in valence). Thus, these findings paint a picture of couples in which indi-
viduals make a great deal of contact with each other, typically via methods
that allow for a rapid response from their partner, likely contributing towards
a sense of togetherness while geographically separated.
Only four of the nine RMBs were significantly predictive of relationship
satisfaction, and not all were positive. These findings run counter to prior
research (e.g., Dainton & Aylor, 2002), which suggests that overall increased
engagement in RMBs is associated with improved relationship outcomes. We
found that intrapersonal RMBs used before, during, and after separation were
associated with relationship satisfaction, as were dyadic RMBs during
separation. More specifically, intrapersonal RMBs used before separation
and during separation and dyadic RMBs during separation were associated
with greater relationship satisfaction, where those used after separation were
associated with lower relationship satisfaction. These findings are all consist-
ent with the study’s hypotheses, which casts doubt on the prevailing concep-
tualization of RMBs (i.e., engaging in more RMBs is routinely beneficial for
the well-being of the couple); rather, a functional analysis of the RMBs may
provide a more accurate understanding of which are beneficial or detrimental
to the couple’s relationship.
Notably, an overall pattern was observed where intrapersonal RMBs at all
time points were predictors of relationship satisfaction, in addition to dyadic
RMBs during separation. This suggests that it is not only couple-level behavior
that is important during the time of separation, but also how each individual
partner processes the separation through their cognition and behavior at all
time points surrounding the geographic separation. It is likely that intraper-
sonal RMBs used both before and during separation serve an important pre-
paratory purpose; that is, these RMBs may help an individual to handle the
time apart more effectively by increasing one’s thoughts and internal proces-
sing of the separation, both in anticipation as well as during the actual separ-
ation. One hypothesis is that individual cognitive processing of the separation
at these critical time points may be a precursor to more open and effective
couple communication about the separation. The idea of increased intraper-
sonal RMBs may be in contrast to the approach taken by individuals who
avoid thinking about the time apart from their partner, and perhaps avoid
experiencing negative emotions, which is generally viewed as maladaptive
for relationship functioning (Benson, McGinn, & Christensen, 2012). In sum-
mary, both the continued efforts to process the separation internally as well as
efforts to connect with one’s partner during the actual time of separation
appear to be important for relationship satisfaction. It may behoove relation-
ship outcomes for couples in LDRs to cope with the distance through both
individual and relational processes.
 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW 17

When viewing the utility of various RMBs through a cognitive-behavioral

lens, in the current study it was hypothesized that during the critical time of
reuniting with one’s partner the behaviors or cognitions that detract from
quality time together would be detrimental for the relationship. Findings
partially supported this hypothesis in that increased intrapersonal RMBs
after reuniting (e.g., one partner thinking to himself or herself what kind
of impact the separation had on the relationship) were associated with
decreased relationship satisfaction. Thus, an increase in individual
processing about the separation may be occurring at the cost of processing
the separation together with one’s partner and connecting over the shared
experience.
While it was hypothesized that increased use of network RMBs after
separation would be detrimental for the relationship, network RMBs were
not significantly associated with relationship satisfaction at any time point
around the geographic separation. It was hypothesized that engaging with
one’s friends and family and processing the separation with one’s social
network would represent a lost opportunity to connect with one’s partner
(similar to the intrapersonal RMBs during the same time period). Yet, there
are also many benefits that can come from engaging with one’s social net-
work, including buffering against problems in physical and psychological
health (Walen & Lachman, 2000). However, the measure of RMBs utilized
in the current study did not capture the potential positive benefits of engaging
with one’s social network regarding the separation; therefore, this could not
be disentangled in the current study.
The second aim of the study was to examine the effect of RMBs on indi-
vidual functioning via impacting romantic relationship satisfaction. The
study’s hypotheses were supported, as relationship satisfaction served as a
mediator between increased use of RMBs and individual functioning,
namely individual psychological distress and life satisfaction. Consistent
with the aforementioned findings, greater use of intrapersonal RMBs before
and during separation as well as a greater use of dyadic RMBs during
separation were all associated with greater individual life satisfaction through
greater relationship satisfaction. However, using more intrapersonal RMBs
after separation was associated with lower relationship satisfaction, which
was in turn associated with lower satisfaction with life. The same findings
were mostly observed for individual psychological distress, except
relationship satisfaction was not a mediator when intrapersonal RMBs before
separation was the predictor. Taken together, these findings suggest that the
extent to which an individual engages in behaviors or cognitions that
enhance their relationship can have added benefits of augmenting one’s
individual functioning around times of geographic separation. Overall,
these findings are consistent with previous research and theory, stating
that relationship distress functions as a broad, diffuse stressor, which can
18 J. M. BELUS ET AL.

in turn adversely affect one’s individual and psychological well-being

(Whisman, 2007).
There are also a number of limitations to the present study that should be
acknowledged. First, the current study was limited by the method of measure-
ment of RMBs. As discussed earlier, the measure created by Merolla (2010a)
provides a useful framework for identifying RMBs enacted at different time
points and at different levels (i.e., individual, dyadic, network). However,
some of the RMB subscales did not capture behaviors that might be important
for couples experiencing LDRs. For example, the items comprising the intra-
personal RMBs after separation appeared mainly ruminative in nature rather
than also identifying behaviors that signify adaptive or optimistic introspec-
tion. Future research should consider extending Merolla’s (2010a) measure
to identify a wider set of RMBs behaviors that are likely to be functionally
adaptive. Second, the sample itself greatly limits the generalizability of the
findings. Although the sample extended beyond college students, the sample
was highly educated and was comprised mostly of women in heterosexual
relationships. Gender in particular is an important factor influencing the
behavior of heterosexual couples (Gotta et al., 2011), so future research should
recruit a more gender-balanced sample (i.e., similar numbers of men and
women) to determine whether the patterns observed hold true for both
genders. Moreover, future studies on LDRs and RMBs should continue to
broaden the scope of the sample selected in order to better understand how
a wide range of couples in LDRs stay connected at a distance, including
diversity in race and ethnicity, education, and sexual orientation.
Finally, the last major limitation was that all data were drawn from a
single time point, so that neither temporal precedence nor causality can
be determined from this data. It is possible that greater relationship
satisfaction temporally precedes and predicts the use of certain RMBs.
However, given the lack of existing research on RMBs in adult civilian LDRs,
this study utilized a theoretically informed model as an attempt to mitigate
this limitation. Furthermore, this study collected data from only one partner
per couple; future studies should include both members of a couple to
examine the extent to which utilization of RMBs between partners may be
similar, or how the use of RMBs by each individual may interact with each
other to impact either partner’s self-reported individual or relationship
well-being.
Taken together, the findings from the current study support the notion that
engaging in more RMBs is not necessarily globally beneficial for one’s
relationship satisfaction or individual well-being. It is imperative to consider
the functional benefit or detriment that a given maintenance behavior or
cognition may have on the individual, couple, and the couple’s broader
environment in order to understand how couples can most effectively and
positively maintain a sense of connectedness at a distance.
 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW 19

Notes
1. The first 34 participants did not receive a gift card as funding was not available at that time.
2. Race/ethnicity categories were not mutually exclusive, therefore percentages do not add up
to 100.
3. In the original article, Merolla (2012) tested both a 9-factor and 10-factor model, with
results suggesting similar model fit and that either model would be acceptable for use in
empirical investigations (Andrew Merolla, personal communication, January 12, 2015).
The nine-factor model was chosen for the current study because of the stronger theoretical
basis and also because it is more parsimonious.
4. We controlled for relevant demographic characteristics (relationship length, number of
miles separated, and frequency of visits), but none of these control variables were signifi-
cant (p > 0.05). Some participants were missing data on the control variables (n = 6), and it
was not possible to impute values for these variables because they were demographic fac-
tors (i.e., no other variables could be used as their predictors). Therefore, we present the
model without demographic control variables to retain the greatest sample size and power
for our model, as well as to avoid the result biases associated with listwise deletion.
5. The value in parentheses represents the numerator degrees of freedom for the models.
When using multiple imputation for regression analyses, the denominator degrees of free-
dom approach infinity due to the large number of model iterations. This value no longer
carries the same meaning as in typical regression analyses and is therefore omitted here.

ORCID
Jennifer M. Belus http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4091-4889

References
Antony, M. M., Bieling, P. J., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Swinson, R. P. (1998). Psychometric
properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the depression anxiety stress scales in
clinical groups and a community sample. Psychological Assessment, 10(2), 176–181.
doi:10.1037/1040-3590.10.2.176
Baker, L. R., McNulty, J. K., Overall, N. C., Lambert, N. M., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). How do
relationship maintenance behaviors affect individual well-being?. A contextual perspective.
Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(3), 282–289. doi:10.1177/1948550612452891
Benson, L. A., McGinn, M. M., & Christensen, A. (2012). Common principles of couple
therapy. Behavior Therapy, 43(1), 25–35. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2010.12.009
Boase, J., & Wellman, B. (2006). Personal relationships: On and off the Internet. In
A. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships
(pp. 709–723). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Carter, S. P., & Renshaw, K. D. (2015). Spousal communication during military deployments:
A review. Journal of Family Issues, 37(16), 2309–2332. doi:0192513x14567956.
Carter, S. P., & Renshaw, K. D. (2016). Communication via different media during military
deployments and postdeployment relationship satisfaction. Military Behavioral Health, 4(3),
260–268. doi:10.1080/21635781.2016.1
Cohen, S., & McKay, G. (1984). Social support, stress and the buffering hypothesis: A
theoretical analysis. In A. Baum, S. E. Taylor, & J. E. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology
and health (pp. 253–267). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310
20 J. M. BELUS ET AL.

Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2002). Patterns of communication channel use in the maintenance
of long-distance relationships. Communication Research Reports, 19(2), 118–129.
doi:10.1080/08824090209384839
Dargie, E., Blair, K. L., Goldfinger, C., & Pukall, C. F. (2015). Go long! Predictors of positive
relationship outcomes in long-distance dating relationships. Journal of Sex and Marital
Therapy, 41(2), 181–202. doi:10.1080/0092623X.2013.864367
Du Bois, S. N., Sher, T. G., Grotkowski, K., Aizenman, T., Slesinger, N., & Cohen, M. (2016).
Going the distance: Health in long-distance versus proximal relationships. The Family
Journal, 24(1), 5–14. doi:10.1177/1066480715616580
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Epstein, N. B., & Baucom, D. H. (2002). Enhanced cognitive-behavioral therapy for couples: A
contextual approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/
10481-000
Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing
precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the couples satisfaction index.
Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572–583. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572
Gilbertson, J., Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1998). Relational continuity constructional units
and the maintenance of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(6),
774–790. doi:10.1177/0265407598156004
Gotta, G., Green, R.-J., Rothblum, E., Solomon, S., Balsam, K., & Schwartz, P. (2011).
Heterosexual, lesbian, and gay male relationships: A comparison of couples in 1975 and
2000. Family Process, 50, 353–376. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2011.01365.x
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical
independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3),
451–470. doi:10.1111/bmsp.12028
Kelmer, G., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S., & Markman, H. J. (2013). Relationship quality,
commitment, and stability in long‐distance relationships. Family Process, 52(2), 257–270.
doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01418.x
Larsen, J., Urry, J., & Axhausen, K. (2006). Social networks and future mobilities. Lancaster,
England: UK Department for Transport.
Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales
(2nd ed.). Sydney, Australia: Psychology Foundation of Australia.
Merolla, A. J. (2010a). Relational maintenance and noncopresence reconsidered:
Conceptualizing geographic separation in close relationships. Communication Theory,
20(2), 169–193. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01359.x
Merolla, A. J. (2010b). Relational maintenance during military deployment: Perspectives of
wives of deployed US soldiers. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(1), 4–26.
doi:10.1080/00909880903483557
Merolla, A. J. (2012). Connecting here and there: A model of long-distance relationship
maintenance. Personal Relationships, 19(4), 775–795. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01392.x
Monson, C. M., Taft, C. T., & Fredman, S. J. (2009). Military-related PTSD and intimate
relationships: From description to theory-driven research and intervention development.
Clinical Psychology Review, 29(8), 707–714. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.09.002
Morey, J. N., Gentzler, A. L., Creasy, B., Oberhauser, A. M., & Westerman, D. (2013). Young adults’
use of communication technology within their romantic relationships and associations with
attachment style. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1771–1778. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.019
Pistole, M. C., Roberts, A., & Chapman, M. L. (2010). Attachment, relationship maintenance,
and stress in long distance and geographically close romantic relationships. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 27(4), 535–552. doi:10.1177/0265407510363427
 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW 21

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3),
879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Rhodes, A. R. (2002). Long-distance relationships in dual-career commuter couples: A review
of counseling issues. The Family Journal, 10(4), 398–404. doi:10.1177/106648002236758
Rubin, D. B. (1987). The calculation of posterior distributions by data augmentation:
Comment: A noniterative sampling/importance resampling alternative to the data
augmentation algorithm for creating a few imputations when fractions of missing
information are modest: The SIR algorithm. Journal of the American Statistical Association,
82(398), 543–546. doi:10.2307/2289460
Sahlstein, E. M. (2006). Making plans: Praxis strategies for negotiating uncertainty–certainty in
long-distance relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 70(2), 147–165.
doi:10.1080/10570310600710042
Sigman, S. J. (1991). Handling the discontinuous aspects of continuous social relationships:
Toward research on the persistence of social forms. Communication Theory, 1(2),
106–127. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1991.tb00008.x
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type,
gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal relationships, 8(2),
217–242. doi:10.1177/0265407591082004
Yuan, Y. C. (2000). Multiple imputation for missing data: Concepts and new development.
Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference (Paper
No. 267). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Walen, H. R., & Lachman, M. E. (2000). Social support and strain from partner, family, and
friends: Costs and benefits for men and women in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 17(1), 5–30. doi:10.1177/0265407500171001
Whisman, M. A. (2007). Marital distress and DSM-IV psychiatric disorders in a population-
based national survey. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116(3), 638–643. doi:10.1037/0021-
843X.116.3.638