Michaelgfries.weebly.com



Running Head: MEDIA AND LONG-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPSThe Effect of Technology and Media on the Conflict in Long-distance Romantic RelationshipsMichael G. FriesJames Madison UniversityIntroductionThe study of long-distance relationships (LDR’s), friendly and romantic, has been studied throughout time with different focus areas in mind. What are the driving forces behind these relationships? How has media and the evolution of technology had an effect? What maintenance strategies are used to sustain successful bonds? Many studies exist which compare and contrast long-distance relationships and geographically close relationships (Sahlstein, 2004). While study results have shown difficulty in partners’ ability to maintain relationships at a distance, these difficulties are not consistently problematic compared to a geographically close one. Every relationship has individual characteristics that either benefit, or cause harm to the relationship strength (Maguire & Kinney, 2010). These unanswered questions have promoted research to define the differences between long-distance relationships and close relationships, and how partners are able to stay committed. Unfortunately this research it has yet to reveal why these relationships continue to succeed (high levels of satisfaction), and why they are becoming more common (Cameron & Ross, 2007). In 2009, approximately 1 million people reported being involved in long-distance relationships. The largest number of LDR’s occurred with college students(Pattie, 2009). Of that college population, close to 75% indicated that they were in, or planed to be in a romantic relationship at a distance at some point during their time in college (Pattie, 2009). As advancements in travel and communication technology have become easier to access by the general public, communication at a distance has been easier to sustain (Merolla, 2010). Cell phone use, the Internet, E-mail, and social networking have all played a part in the success of long-distance relationships (LDR’s), but to what extent? It is also important to determine which of these technologies has the greatest effect. If a common trend appears with technology use, the data can be used to expand the technology, offering better ways for couples to adapt to being apart and could generate large amounts of capital. There are many characteristics and emotions resulting from LDR’s that need to be understood before a maintenance strategy can be devised. Because of distance, communication barriers exist in long-distance relationships and can cause confusion. The problem exists if certain messages are not deciphered correctly. Some computer-mediated-communication (CMC) lacks tone and immediate feedback, which can have both positive and negative consequences on a romantic relationship. In times of conflict, the reactions, or “management styles,” expressed by couples are vital (Pistole, Roberts & Chapman, 2010). One wrong or misguided response can cause a slippery slope effect escalating the tension between couples. In an LDRR, “Stress and Emotions” and “Jealousy and Commitment” challenge the success of that relationship, and are main causes of conflict. Reducing StressStress has been proven to directly affect interpersonal relationships. Maki and Dillow (2009) took a closer look at stress and believe that stress is derived from “the occurrence of an important event which they (individuals) do not feel as though they have an appropriate way to respond” (Maki & Dillow, 2009, 2). The key word in that quotation is ‘respond.’ Partners in long-distance relationships face this obstacle on a daily basis. Messages sent and received between partners are greatly impacted by time and distance, causing stress to build up. In times of conflict couples are forced to settle feuds remotely. Disputes handled in the absence of direct contact can cause stress to go unresolved, increasing mental feelings of anxiety, depression, and psychosomatic discomfort, and even increasing physical risks like heart disease (Maki & Dillow, 2009). Committing to a long-distance relationship can be hard work for some individuals. Internal and external pressure is common for partners in LDRR’s. Separation, travel, and the economy are normal stressors experienced by couples and are considered more than just a “speed bump” (Maguire & Kinney, 2010). The bulk of the stress comes from internal sources, like emotions and personality traits. Constant separation from a loved one induces feelings of anxiety, frustration, uncertainty, and distrust (Guldner, 1996). Couples who have experienced problems like these compensate by increasing their communication efforts (Mietzner & Lin, 2005). By acting positively, couples lean on one another by sharing tasks, giving helpful advice, and by increasing pleasant interactions (Pistole, Roberts & Chapman, 2010). Planning times to communicate or connect with one another has been proven to be a challenge in LDRR’s. Conflicting schedules, and individual preferences can interfere with a couples’ ability to communicate regularly. Lack of organization in a relationship has been proven to be problematic (Sahlstein, 2004), and when plans fall through, stress levels are heightened causing unsatisfactory ratings to increase. Other stressors include, but are not limited to, travel expenses, cultural differences, family influences, economic hardships, insecurity issues etc… most of which are common in ALL relationships, but individual problems in LDR’s do stand out (Maguire & Kinney, 2010). Jealousy and Commitment In typical relationships jealousy is a characteristic that most wish to avoid. The existence of jealousy in a romantic relationship can add negative feelings between partners that have the potential to be destructive in nature (Webb & Warford, 2006). Those who study long-distance romantic relationships find it important to investigate the variable of jealousy to see how it may, or may not, affect commitment levels between partners. Jealousy is so important because it “is experienced in emotions and thoughts, and then potentially manifest in communicative behaviors” (Webb & Warford, 2006, 2). In addition, this variable directly influences the communication behaviors of couples in LDRR’s. Jealousy due to separation has been proven to decrease relational closeness, satisfaction, and emotional support (Merolla, 2010); in other words, it can reduce commitment and increase loneliness (Webb & Warford, 2006). Couples in long-distance relationships are more of a target for jealousy because they are separated by distance. It is more difficult for partners to know exactly what is going on with their significant other without visual proof, causing feelings of jealousy to occur more easily than traditional relationships. These feelings of uncertainty can “trigger an emotional arousal”, causing anger, distrust, and distress to remain prevalent in LDRR’s (Webb & Warford, 2006, 4). Jealousy behaviors are used to both increase and decrease commitment levels. It is common for partners in long-distance relationships to perform certain behaviors with the goal of invoking jealousy in their significant other. Feelings of uncertainty are the driving force behind this action, because it forces the other person to react. This can work to increase the commitment level of a relationship, or it can be so damaging that it has a lasting negative effect, bringing the end of all trust. Because commitment represents the feeling of importance in a relationship, (Rabby, 2007) the expansion of this variable is important to the success of a couples’ bond. E-mail in Long-Distance Romantic RelationshipsThe use of email is an important medium to study because it is used every day. College students have free access to email and in 2008 as many as 72% of students reported checking their email at least once a day (Johnson, Haigh, Becker, Craig & Wigley, 2008). E-mailing is a strategic process that allows the user to take his or her time and apply all the thought necessary to complete a message. In contrast to face-to-face interactions, email responses can be edited instead of saying the first thing that comes to mind. This can be viewed as an advantage in some cases because responses are thought out. Because of its strategic use, low cost, and convenience, the use of email provides a great medium for the maintenance of interpersonal relationships (Johnson, Haigh, Becker, Craig & Wigley, 2008).“Text based systems continue to dominate Internet” (Johnson, Haigh, Becker, Craig & Wigley, 2008, 383). “Although email is more commonly used than other forms of CMC, it is but one form of technology that can be used to maintain relationships.” Interactive software that offers face-to-face interaction and vocal responses is considered to be preferred, but through the test of time email has been found to be the most popular. College is a pivotal time in a young person’s life, as they are forced to put some relationships on hold. Physical separation from loved ones causes high levels of stress in most relationships (Guldner, 1996). The distance interferes with family, friends, and romantic relationships, but technological changes have become vital to the maintenance of interpersonal relationships. The main advantage of email, and other text based systems, is the ability to act as a “maintenance tool” (Johnson, Haigh, Becker, Craig & Wigley, 2008, 384). In situations where distance between partners is ordinary, the opportunity for face-to-face interaction decreases directly (Johnson, Haigh, Becker, Craig & Wigley, 2008). Because email is not a simultaneous communication medium, it provides a leisurely and minimal stress environment for subjects to respond in. In past research, it has been found that most email messages exchanged between long-distance couples are characterized by openness and narration. Both of which are viewed as positives, but is it enough? Can this linear medium solely maintain long-distance relationships? That answer is doubtful. What email provides in convenience and cost, it lacks in intimacy. In romantic relationships, if partners get accustomed to editing their communication methods it can have serious consequences on the genuine nature of that relationship. In other words, the asynchronous communication that email offers does not allow for genuine and immediate self-disclosure, intimacy, and honesty (Johnson, Haigh, Becker, Craig & Wigley, 2008). Also, because email is written, partners have the ability to go back and review everything that was said word for word. This can be beneficial because information is stored and easily accessible. This aids couples’ with their communication if the context of the message is positive, but in times of conflict written history can have damaging effects. Partners must be careful with their use of rhetoric and word choice because argumentative messages can increase tensions. Cell-phone useCell phone use has truly revolutionized the ability to maintain LDR’s. It has been found that telephone use is the most preferred alternative to face-to-face interaction (Dainton & Aylor, 2002). Because lack of face-to-face interaction is the main problem in long-distance romantic relationships (LDRR’s), individuals turn to the telephone to fill that void. Differing from email, cell-phone use has provided the opportunity to express clear emotion and offers companionship. Because telephones are mobile, interacting through them provides long-distance couples a feeling of comfort, as they can be reached in seconds. Communication is able to stay “constant” which increases overall satisfaction in LDR’s. Communication mediums that allow for direct feedback and vocal response are able to meet the needs of long-distance couples. “Previous research suggests that… the use of the telephone better met sociability gratifications (which they claim is analogous to relational maintenance) than did e-mail.” (Dainton & Aylor, 2002, 120). That being said it is important to stress the value of the telephone and its ability to maintain satisfaction, commitment and trust in relationships. The question still remains whether or not a relationship exists between the amount of telephone usage and the amount of satisfaction reported by couples of LDRR’s. It is true that different communication mediums generate different meanings. For example, telephone use produces “positivity,” and email and Internet expresses “openness.” (Dainton & Aylor, 2002, 120). It has been studied that LDR’s use a variety of communication mediums more often, but where is the line drawn? There must be an upper limit at which too much cell-phone contact can be overwhelming, distracting, and annoying. The Effect of Media-in-General Modern technologies have changed the ways in which our world communicates (Utz, 2007). Networking has provided people with the capability to hold a larger number of “loosely knit” relationships, compared to most traditional relationships that consist of smaller circles. In the past, media encouraged long-distance relationships with letters and home telephones. With time, the influence of media has increased and a thin line between online and offline interaction has been established (Utz, 2007). In modern society the majority of interpersonal communication occurs commonly with the absence of face-to-face dialogue. The media has played such an influential role in communication because of the strong desire to replicate the authenticity of face-to-face interaction, a critical component of a successful LDR. The stimulus produced by this type of interaction is crucial to the success of long-distance relationships, and with “The absence of hearing a person’s voice or detecting nonverbal communication cues increase the chances of being misunderstood and serve as likely breeding grounds for conflicts” (Chang, 2003, 7). Computer-mediated-communication, like SMS messaging, instant messaging, and chat rooms, attempted to bridge that gap, but have been unsuccessful. Data has shown that these types of exchanges were barely used in communicating between partners of LDRR’s. Can media use be the main contributor to success in long-distance relationships? The influence of media has helped, but it is not the separating factor between LDR’s and offline relationships (Rabby, 2007). That question has been debated numerous times, but the results suggest otherwise. Incorporating new technology, like the web-cam, has been proven to facilitate relationship maintenance, but has not been proven to stand the test of time and distance. In conclusion it is suggested that “technology not only draws out inevitable endings longer than need be, but are sometimes unsatisfactory in resolving conflicts.” (Chang, 2003, 5). MethodThis study will investigate the communication habits of young men and women involved in long-distance romantic relationships. The participants involved (N=25 Males and 25 Females) in this study will be recruited from James Madison University, in an effort to discover the most effective methods of communication in long-distance romantic relationships. This qualitative study involves individuals who commonly experience separation from their significant others, with separation being characterized as, “my partner lives far enough away from me that it would be very difficult or impossible to see him every day” (Maguire and Kinney, 2010). Ideally, the average participant will be an undergraduate student at James Madison University, ranging from freshman to senior; i.e. 18-22 years old. Participants will be asked to partake in a focus group, consisting of only males or females, and somewhere between 5 to 10 members. Separating the groups by gender allows for people to speak freely in a comfortable environment, resulting in more accurate responses. References Abby, M. K. (2007). Relational maintenance and the influence of commitment in online and offline Relationships. Communication Studies, 58 (3), 315-337. doi: 10.1080/10510970701518405Cameron, J. J., & Ross, M. (2007). In times of uncertainty: Predicting the survival of long-distance relationships. Journal Of Social Psychology, 147(6), 581-606.Chang, S. (2003). Communication technologies and long-distance romantic relationships. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 1-31. doi:ica_proceeding_11995.PDF (Check) Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2002). Patterns of communication channel use in the maintenance of long-distance relationships. Communication Research Reports, 19(2), 118-129.Guldner, G.T. (1996). Long-distance romantic relationships: Prevalence and separation-related symptoms in college students. Journal of College Student Development, 37,289-296Johnson, A., Haigh, M. M., Becker, J. H., Craig, E. A., & Wigley, S. (2008). College students’ use of relational management strategies in email in long-distance and geographically close relationships. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(2), 381-404. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00401.xMaguire, K. C., & Kinney, T. A. (2010). When distance is problematic: Communication, coping, and relational satisfaction in female college students' long-distance dating relationships. Journal Of Applied Communication Research, 38(1), 27-46. doi:10.1080/00909880903483573Maki, S., & Dillow, M. (2009). Long-distance romantic relationships, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Conference Papers -- National Communication Association, 1.Merolla, A. J. (2010). Relational maintenance and noncopresence reconsidered: conceptualizing geographic separation in close relationships. Communication Theory (10503293), 20(2), 169-193. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01359.xMerolla, A. J. (2010). Relational maintenance during military deployment: Perspectives of wives of deployed U.S. soldiers. Journal Of Applied Communication Research, 38(1), 4-26. doi:10.1080/00909880903483557Mietzner, S., & Lin, L. (2005). Would you do it again? Relationship skills gained in a long-distance relationship. College Student Journal, 39(1), 192.Pattie, B. (2009). The impact of conflict management styles on relational and communication satisfaction comparing long-distance and geographically close dating relationships. Conference Papers -- National Communication Association, 1.Pistole, M., Roberts, A., & Chapman, M. L. (2010). Attachment, relationship maintenance, and stress in long distance and geographically close romantic relationships. Journal Of Social & Personal Relationships, 27(4), 535-552. doi:10.1177/0265407510363427Sahlstein, E. M. (2004). Relating at a distance: Negotiating being together and being apart in long-distance relationships. Journal Of Social & Personal Relationships, 21(5), 689-710. doi:10.1177/0265407504046115Utz, S. (2007). Media use in long-distance friendships. Information, Communication & Society, 10(5), 694-713. doi:10.1080/13691180701658046Webb, L., & Warford, E. (2006). The influence of relational proximity and biological sex on the determinants of communicative responses to jealousy in romantic relationships: comparing and contrasting patterns of association. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 1-41. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download