Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:27:01.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Full-Dimensionality of Relating in Romantic Relationships

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2012

Anca M. Miron ,
Frances H. Rauscher ,
Alexandra Reyes ,
David Gavel  and
Kourtney K. Lechner
Anca M. Miron*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, USA
Frances H. Rauscher
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, USA
Alexandra Reyes
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, USA
David Gavel
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, USA
Kourtney K. Lechner
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, USA
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Anca Miron, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, Oshkosh, WI 54901, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

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 experienced 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 relationshipssensory channelslovefull-dimensionalitylong-distance relationships
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Relationships Research , Volume 3 , December 2012 , pp. 67 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

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.Google Scholar
Brehm, J.W. (1999). The intensity of emotion. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 3, 2–22. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0301_1.Google Scholar
Brehm, J.W., & Self, E.A. (1989). The intensity of motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 109–131. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.40.020189.000545.Google Scholar
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.1467-9280.2006.0183.Google Scholar
Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2002). Patterns of communication channel use in the maintenance of long-distance relationships, Communication Research Reports, 19, 118–129.Google Scholar
Diamond, L.M., Hicks, A.M., & Otter-Henderson, K.D. (2008). Every time you go away: Changes in affect, behavior, and physiology 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.Google Scholar
Field, T. (2010). Touch for socioemotional and physical well-being: A review. Developmental Review, 30, 367–383.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Gendolla, G.H.E., & Wright, R.A. (2005). Motivation in social settings: Studies of effort-related cardiovascular arousal. In Forgas, J.P., Williams, K., & von Hippel, B. (Eds.), Social motivation: Conscious and nonconscious processes (pp. 71–90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gerstel, N., & Gross, H.E. (1982). Commuter marriages: A review. Marriages and Family Review, 5, 71–93.Google Scholar
Goodwin, R. (1999). Personal relationships across cultures. Florence, KY: Taylor & Frances/Routledge.Google Scholar
Gongaza, G.C., Keltner, D., Londahl, E.A., & Smith, M.D. (2001). Love and the commitment problem in romantic relations and friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 247–262. doi:10.I037//0022-3514.81.2.247.Google Scholar
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 Counseling, 11, 265–281.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Gunn, D.O., & Gunn, C.W. (2000, September). The quality of electronically maintained relationships. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association of Internet Research, Lawrence, KS.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Klinger, E. (1975). Consequences of commitment to and disengagement from incentives. Psychological Review, 82, 1–25.Google Scholar
Kock, N. (2004). The psychobiological model: Towards a new theory of computer-mediated communication based on Darwinian evolution. Organization Science, 15, 327–348.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Miron, A.M., Knepfel, D., & Parkinson, S. K. (2009). The surprising effect of partner flaws and qualities on romantic affect, Motivation and Emotion, 33, 261–276. doi:10.1007/sl 1031-009-9138-0.Google Scholar
Montagu, A. (1978). Touching: The human significance of the skin (2nd ed.), New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Motamedi, N. (2007). Keep in touch: A tactile-vision intimate interface. British Columbia: Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Rohlfing, M. (1995). ‘Doesn't anybody stay in one place anymore?’ An exploration of the under-studied phenomenon of long-distance relationships. In Wood, J. & Duck, S. (Eds.), Under-studied relationships: Off the beaten track (pp. 173–196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Stafford, L., & Reske, J.R. (1990). Idealization and communication in long-distance premarital relationships, Family Relations, 39, 274–279.Google Scholar
Stephen, T. (1986). Communication and interdependence in geographically separated relationships. Human Communication Research, 13, 191–210.Google Scholar
Wicklund, R.A. (2004). The role of distance in valuing another person. In Wright, R.A., Greenberg, J., & Brehm, S.S. (Eds.). Motivational analyses of social behavior. Building on Jack Brehm's contributions to psychology (pp. 97–106). NJ, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wicklund, R.A. (2007). Mellommenneskelige forhold. A se, hore og berore. [Interpersonal relations: To see, hear, and touch]. Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget.Google Scholar
Vormbrock, J.K. (1993). Attachment theory as applied to wartime and job-related marital separation. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 122–144.Google Scholar
Wright, H.F. (1937). The influence of barriers upon strength of motivation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, R.A. (1998). Ability perception and cardiovascular response to behavioral challenge. In Kofta, M., Weary, G., & Sedek, G. (Eds.), Control in action: Cognitive and motivational mechanisms (pp. 197–232). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Wright, R.A., Toi, M., & Brehm, J.W. (1985). Difficulty and interpersonal attraction. Motivation and Emotion, 8, 327–341.Google Scholar