Idealization and Idealization and Communication in Long-Communication in Long-

Distance Premarital Distance Premarital RelationshipsRelationships

Laura Stafford and James R. ReskeLaura Stafford and James R. ReskeOhio State UniversityOhio State University

Journal of Family Relations 1990Journal of Family Relations 1990

--Hannah Jansen Hannah Jansen

Idealization and Idealization and Communication in Long-Communication in Long-

Distance Premarital Distance Premarital RelationshipsRelationships

Laura Stafford and James R. ReskeLaura Stafford and James R. ReskeOhio State UniversityOhio State University

Journal of Family Relations 1990Journal of Family Relations 1990

--Hannah Jansen Hannah Jansen

Idealization and Idealization and Communication in Long-Communication in Long-

Distance Premarital Distance Premarital RelationshipsRelationships

Laura Stafford and James R. ReskeLaura Stafford and James R. ReskeOhio State UniversityOhio State University

Journal of Family Relations 1990Journal of Family Relations 1990

--Hannah Jansen Hannah Jansen

Why Study Premarital Why Study Premarital Relationships?Relationships?• Studying premarital Studying premarital

relationships is essential in relationships is essential in order to develop a research-order to develop a research-theory based approach to theory based approach to marriage counseling.marriage counseling.

• ““Events that occur and Events that occur and attitudes that are formed attitudes that are formed during the premarital stage during the premarital stage of a relationship, impact of a relationship, impact satisfaction and stability in satisfaction and stability in marriage”. (p247) marriage”. (p247)

So why study Long So why study Long Distance relationships?Distance relationships?• Long distance relationships are very common in Long distance relationships are very common in

the college population. approximately 1/3 of the college population. approximately 1/3 of college students consider themselves to be part college students consider themselves to be part of a long distance relationship. of a long distance relationship.

• Face to face communication is limited in a long Face to face communication is limited in a long distance (LD) relationship which may have an distance (LD) relationship which may have an effect on the longevity of the relationship if it is effect on the longevity of the relationship if it is desired. desired.

SO … what’s the problem SO … what’s the problem with Idealization?with Idealization?

• Idealization: Idealization: to regard or to regard or represent as perfect.represent as perfect.

• The concern is that LD couples experience The concern is that LD couples experience idealization for a longer period of time increasing idealization for a longer period of time increasing the risk of marital dissatisfaction and disillusion. the risk of marital dissatisfaction and disillusion.

hypothesishypothesis

1. Long distance couples will report being more 1. Long distance couples will report being more idealized therefore report being more in love idealized therefore report being more in love and satisfied with the perceived quality of their and satisfied with the perceived quality of their communication. communication.

2. LD relationships will report less frequent face to 2. LD relationships will report less frequent face to face interaction and a larger portion of their face interaction and a larger portion of their communication will be via telephone communication will be via telephone conversation, or email. (DUH) conversation, or email. (DUH)

Hypothesis Hypothesis cont.cont. 3. 3. The constrained amount of The constrained amount of

communication will be directly related to communication will be directly related to the measure of idealization, love, the measure of idealization, love, satisfaction, and quality of communication. satisfaction, and quality of communication.

Theoretical ConstructTheoretical Construct

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

Operational definitions Operational definitions (instruments used)(instruments used)

• Questionnaire bookletQuestionnaire booklet

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

Operational definitions Operational definitions continued….continued….• 4 Standardized scales4 Standardized scales

• 1. Idealized Distortion Scale (IDS)1. Idealized Distortion Scale (IDS)– Direct measure of idealizationDirect measure of idealization

• .92 internal consistency reliability.92 internal consistency reliability

• .92 test, re-test reliability.92 test, re-test reliability

• 2. Locke-Wallace Marital adjustment test 2. Locke-Wallace Marital adjustment test (MAT)(MAT)– Most widely used test for marital satisfaction and Most widely used test for marital satisfaction and

has been modified for premarital relationshipshas been modified for premarital relationships..

• .90 reliability.90 reliability

………………

• 3. Rubin’s Love Scale3. Rubin’s Love Scale– Measures romantic Measures romantic

Love constructLove construct• .84 internal .84 internal

consistency consistency

• 4. Bienvenu’s Marital 4. Bienvenu’s Marital Communication Communication Inventory (MCI)Inventory (MCI) – A 19 item scale A 19 item scale

concerning the concerning the perceived quality of perceived quality of marital communication.marital communication.

• .93 split half .93 split half reliabilityreliability

Method/participantsMethod/participants

• Participants were students in an introductory Participants were students in an introductory communications class from a large university. communications class from a large university. Students were allotted extra credit for participating in Students were allotted extra credit for participating in the study. the study.

• Students were instructed to involve their partner for Students were instructed to involve their partner for the study. None of the couples were engaged or the study. None of the couples were engaged or married.married.

• Total: 34 Geographically close couplesTotal: 34 Geographically close couples 37 Long distance couples37 Long distance couples Average age 21.04 yrsAverage age 21.04 yrs

ProcedureProcedure

• All of the GC couples were seated in a communication All of the GC couples were seated in a communication laboratory and then asked to complete a questionnaire. laboratory and then asked to complete a questionnaire. Subjects weren’t allowed to consults partners during this timeSubjects weren’t allowed to consults partners during this time ..

• LD couples filled out the same survey, with one form mailed to LD couples filled out the same survey, with one form mailed to the other participant; given instructions to fill out and return the other participant; given instructions to fill out and return form without consulting his/her partnerform without consulting his/her partner

• The individuals from the communication class were contacted The individuals from the communication class were contacted six months and a year later and asked if they were still in a six months and a year later and asked if they were still in a dating relationship with their partner (LD or GC)dating relationship with their partner (LD or GC)

AnalysisAnalysis• 2 separate 2 separate

multivariate multivariate analysis of variance analysis of variance were conducted:were conducted:1. 1. IV- Geographic separationIV- Geographic separationDV- Scores from 4 DV- Scores from 4

standardized scalesstandardized scales

Long distance Long distance average 462 average 462 miles apartmiles apart

Geographically Geographically close not close not specifiedspecified

2.2. IV- Geographical IV- Geographical

separationseparation DV-Interaction DV-Interaction

(communication (communication methods)methods)

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

Results cont…Results cont…correlationscorrelations between interaction between interaction variables and variables and relational variablesrelational variables

Results .. Again!!!Results .. Again!!!

• When couples were When couples were asked if they were asked if they were likely to marry:likely to marry:

• 80.3% LD couples 80.3% LD couples said YES!said YES!

• 62.3% GC couples 62.3% GC couples said YEA!!said YEA!!

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

• 24 out of the 34 GC 24 out of the 34 GC contacted were still contacted were still togethertogether

• All 25 of the LD All 25 of the LD contacted were still contacted were still togethertogether

DiscussionDiscussion

• The findings support the idea that long distance The findings support the idea that long distance couples are more idealized, more satisfied with couples are more idealized, more satisfied with their relationship and with their communication and their relationship and with their communication and more in love than the geographically close couplesmore in love than the geographically close couples

• Possibility exists that these individuals actually Possibility exists that these individuals actually have “better” relationships than the GC have “better” relationships than the GC relationships so the positive bias found is a result of relationships so the positive bias found is a result of higher quality relationships.higher quality relationships.

• The findings also seem to assume long distance The findings also seem to assume long distance communication was restricted.communication was restricted.

What I would change????What I would change????

• Increase sample size, include older Increase sample size, include older couples.couples.

• Continue study through marriageContinue study through marriage

The End!!!The End!!!