Idealization and Communication in Long-Distance Premarital Relationships

1
Idealization and Communication in Long-Distance
Premarital Relationships

• Laura Stafford and James R. Reske
• Ohio State University
• Journal of Family Relations 1990
• -Hannah Jansen

2
Idealization and Communication in Long-Distance
Premarital Relationships

• Laura Stafford and James R. Reske
• Ohio State University
• Journal of Family Relations 1990
• -Hannah Jansen

3
Idealization and Communication in Long-Distance
Premarital Relationships

• Laura Stafford and James R. Reske
• Ohio State University
• Journal of Family Relations 1990
• -Hannah Jansen

4
Why Study Premarital Relationships?

• Studying premarital relationships is essential in
  order to develop a research-theory based approach
  to marriage counseling.
• Events that occur and attitudes that are formed
  during the premarital stage of a relationship,
  impact satisfaction and stability in marriage.
  (p247)

5
So why study Long Distance relationships?

• Long distance relationships are very common in
  the college population. approximately 1/3 of
  college students consider themselves to be part
  of a long distance relationship.
• Face to face communication is limited in a long
  distance (LD) relationship which may have an
  effect on the longevity of the relationship if it
  is desired.

6
SO whats the problem with Idealization?

• Idealization to regard or represent as perfect.
• The concern is that LD couples experience
  idealization for a longer period of time
  increasing the risk of marital dissatisfaction
  and disillusion.

7
hypothesis

• 1. Long distance couples will report being
  more idealized therefore report being more in
  love and satisfied with the perceived quality of
  their communication.
• 2. LD relationships will report less frequent
  face to face interaction and a larger portion of
  their communication will be via telephone
  conversation, or email. (DUH)

8
Hypothesis cont.

• 3. The constrained amount of communication will
  be directly related to the measure of
  idealization, love, satisfaction, and quality of
  communication.

9
Theoretical Construct

• Restricted communication and how it relates to
  Idealization in Long distance relationships.

10
Operational definitions (instruments used)

• Questionnaire booklet
• Participants were asked about their age, length
  of dating relationship ect.

11
Operational definitions continued.

• 4 Standardized scales
• 1. Idealized Distortion Scale (IDS)
• Direct measure of idealization
• .92 internal consistency reliability
• .92 test, re-test reliability
• 2. Locke-Wallace Marital adjustment test (MAT)
• Most widely used test for marital satisfaction
  and has been modified for premarital
  relationships.
• .90 reliability

12

• 3. Rubins Love Scale
• Measures romantic Love construct
• .84 internal consistency

• 4. Bienvenus Marital Communication Inventory
  (MCI)
• A 19 item scale concerning the perceived quality
  of marital communication.
• .93 split half reliability

13
Method/participants

• Participants were students in an introductory
  communications class from a large university.
  Students were allotted extra credit for
  participating in the study.
• Students were instructed to involve their partner
  for the study. None of the couples were engaged
  or married.
• Total 34 Geographically close couples
• 37 Long distance couples
• Average age 21.04 yrs

14
Procedure

• All of the GC couples were seated in a
  communication laboratory and then asked to
  complete a questionnaire. Subjects werent
  allowed to consults partners during this time.
• LD couples filled out the same survey, with one
  form mailed to the other participant given
  instructions to fill out and return form without
  consulting his/her partner
• The individuals from the communication class were
  contacted six months and a year later and asked
  if they were still in a dating relationship with
  their partner (LD or GC)

15
Analysis

• 2 separate multivariate analysis of variance were
  conducted
• 1.
• IV- Geographic separation
• DV- Scores from 4 standardized scales
• Long distance average 462 miles apart
• Geographically close not specified

• 2.
• IV- Geographical separation
• DV-Interaction (communication methods)

16
Results..Means and standard deviations of
dependant var. by geographic location

17
Results contcorrelations between interaction
variables and relational variables
18
Results .. Again!!!

• When couples were asked if they were likely to
  marry
• 80.3 LD couples said YES!
• 62.3 GC couples said YEA!!

• 6 months after the study, one member of each LD
  and GC dyad was contacted and asked if they were
  still together as a couple
• 24 out of the 34 GC contacted were still together
• All 25 of the LD contacted were still together

19
Discussion

• The findings support the idea that long distance
  couples are more idealized, more satisfied with
  their relationship and with their communication
  and more in love than the geographically close
  couples
• Possibility exists that these individuals
  actually have better relationships than the GC
  relationships so the positive bias found is a
  result of higher quality relationships.
• The findings also seem to assume long distance
  communication was restricted.

20
What I would change????

• Increase sample size, include older couples.
• Continue study through marriage

21
The End!!!