LDDR Satisfaction: Perceptions vs.

Realities
1

Long Distance Dating Relationship Satisfaction:

Perceptions vs. Realities
Sheena Wadhwa
Britney Craighead
Section: Friday 1PM
3 June 2014

LDDR Satisfaction: Perceptions vs. Realities

2
Long Distance Dating Relationship Satisfaction: Perceptions vs. Realities
Long Distance Dating Relationships are becoming more popular in the dating world with the
progression of technology, especially with college students. Because of the increasing
commonality of these relations, researchers are beginning to analyze Long Distance Dating
Relationships (LDDRs) and how couples in them create and maintain relational stability. There
are even fewer studies on how single people and couples in Close Proximity Dating
Relationships (CPDRs) perceive the satisfaction received in LDDRs. Due to the physical
separation in these cases, these relationships have a reputation of being less satisfactory, more
stressful, and more likely to end sooner than CPDRs. Researchers havent studied the perceptions
of LDDRs but instead focused on the problems, insecurities, and uncertainties of them and how
these aspects predict satisfaction. Other focuses include coping methods that females use to help
the relational strain that develops from long periods of physical distance. Lee and Pistole (2012)
examined the correlation between insecurities and satisfaction in LDDRs and CPDRs. These
researchers found, through a web-based survey, that insecurities are related to self-disclosure in
relationships, which is related to attachment and satisfaction. But, they found differences in these
elements in CPDRs and LDDRs. Van Horn, Arnone, Nesbitt, Desilets, Sears, Giffin, and Brudi,
(1997) also analyze self-disclosure and insecurities but concentrate on college relationships.
They took it one step further, though, and used this information to predict stability with a twopart study. Their first part questionnaire and second part phone interview study concluded that
LDDRs are not more likely to end sooner than CPDRs and satisfaction is the best predictor of
stability (Van Horn, et al., 1997, p. 25). Cameron and Ross (2007) also focused on predicting
survival of relationships through a similar two-part study. But instead, these researchers
examined the participants negative affectivity rather than self-disclosure. They discovered a

LDDR Satisfaction: Perceptions vs. Realities

3
gender difference in this area of study but still concluded the negative affectivity did predict
relational stability (Cameron & Ross, 2007). Maguire and Kinney (2010) also found gender
differences in psychological aspects of relationships. They studied female college student
satisfaction in LDDRs as well as communication and coping methods. The study revolved
around the perceived helpfulness of coping methods in a survey with all female participants to
gather information and conclude the perceived helpfulness of coping methods predicted
satisfaction of participants in both high and low distress LDDRs (Maguire & Kinney, 2010).
This study, similar to the previous one mentioned, focuses on perceptions of satisfaction
in LDDRs. There is little research on LDDRs in general and even less on the perceptions of
them. In particular, studies of college students in LDDRs examine insecurities and coping
mechanisms in relationships rather than the happiness and satisfaction that come from their
relationships. Due to the few studies on LDDRs focusing on the negative aspects of being
physical separated from a partner, it seems as though LDDRs are seen as less satisfactory in
comparison to CPDRs. The three aspects this study predicts are: there is a negative
misunderstanding of satisfaction in LDDRs by UCSB students who are single or in a CPDR,
there is a positive correlation between the amount of communication and satisfaction in LDDRs,
and there is a positive correlation between couples who frequently video chat and relationship
satisfaction. This study will help gain a better understanding of the perceptions and realities of
long distance relationships at UCSB. This difference between perceptions versus realities of
LDDRs will add a different dimension to the understanding of how LDDRs stay in tact.

LDDR Satisfaction: Perceptions vs. Realities

4
Method
Participants
University of California, Santa Barbara undergraduate students with access to Facebook
were sampled in this study. There were ninety-five participants (n=95) that volunteered to
complete the survey without any incentive. Being a UCSB undergraduate student was the only
qualification to take the survey. Other qualifications were not necessary in the study because the
main focus was on perceptions vs. realities of the satisfaction of LDDRs so all types of
relationships were included. In order to reach these UCSB undergraduate students, we posted the
survey on Facebooks UCSB Class of 2015 group page and the students took the survey on
their own computers at home. Out of the total ninety-five participants, thirteen were male and
eighty-two were female. The average time CPDR couples have been together is 28.083 months
whereas the average time LDDR couples have been together is 30.617 months. The ranges of
these lengths were from 1.5 months to 84 months and 1 month to 180 months, respectively.
Because we left the definition of a LDDR up for interpretation, the participants were asked how
far away they lived from their partner. All couples in LDDRs lived over 50 miles away from each
other and the number of times the couples saw each other ranged from once a week to once a
year. Distances between the partners were correlated with how often they are able to see each
other and this correlation was compared to overall relational satisfaction.
Procedure
Participants completed the survey on their own time and voluntarily. We constructed the
survey through Google Drive and posted the link to Facebook for convenience since it was only
web-based. Students, who saw the post on the UCSB Class of 2015 page and chose to
participate, completed the survey without any incentives. Accompanied by the survey link, there

LDDR Satisfaction: Perceptions vs. Realities

5
was an invitation to participate in the survey as well as request of consent. By clicking the
survey, they gave us their consent to participate (See Appendix A). There wasnt a follow up
survey or interview.
Measures
Relational satisfaction as well as perceived satisfaction and stability were measured
through various questions geared toward understanding personal happiness, stability of the
relationship through length of time together, communication between partners, and relationship
satisfaction. The survey was split into sections so participants would answer questions based on
their relationship status. It began with a general section regarding everyones personal happiness.
The last question on this page asked for relational status and based on the participants response,
the survey jumped to the appropriate section. Single people answered questions concerning past
relationships as well as their perceptions of various aspects of LDDRs. People who responded
with CPDR skipped to the next section regarding length, communication, and satisfaction in their
current relationship as well as their perceptions of these aspects in LDDRs. If the participant
answered LDDR, they skipped to the last section regarding length, distance, communication, and
satisfaction in their LDDR. The following will contain portions of the survey. Refer to Appendix
A for more information.
Personal happiness. In order to assess the personal happiness of the participants, the
survey began with seven statements regarding various aspects of the individuals happiness and
self-esteem. They responded to these statements on a Likert-type scale from one (Strongly
Disagree) to seven (Strongly Agree). Statements included, I am content with my life, I
consider myself to be a happy person, and five more. After reverse coding the negative words,
their responses were averaged on a scale of one (not happy) to seven (very happy).

LDDR Satisfaction: Perceptions vs. Realities

6
Length of relationship. Relationship stability was based on was how long the couple had
been exclusively dating for. To gain more accurate results, it was an open-ended question so the
participants could respond with the exact length of the relationship thus far. Single people
answered this question with their longest past relationship in mind and people in CPDRs and
LDDRs answered this with their current relationship in mind. With these results, we were able to
average the lengths of CPDRs and LDDRs to see if LDDRs are more likely to end sooner than
CPDRs.
Communication. Openness and communication between partners is related to
relationship satisfaction as well as stability so many aspects were considered in this section. For
the single students, all questions were directed toward their perceptions of LDDRs. They were
asked close-ended questions such as What do you think is the most beneficial method of
communication between couples in long distance relationships? with answer options including
texting, video calls, talking on the phone, and Snapchat. The CPDR and LDDR groups answered
these questions as well with slight word variation so they were directed toward their current
relationships. For example, they answered questions about the frequency of their communication
via these same methods. CPDR and LDDR sections also included the question How often do
you see your significant other? with options ranging from every day to once a year.
Satisfaction. In order to assess satisfaction, many questions covering various aspects
were required, making this section the largest portion of the survey. All satisfaction sections were
formatted on a Likert-type scale for singles, CPDRs, and LDDRs. The single group responded
purely through perception regarding LDDRs while CPDRs answered based on their own
relationship and then completed a perception portion. As for LDDRs, all questions were directed
toward their current relationships. For example, statements claimed, I am content with the

LDDR Satisfaction: Perceptions vs. Realities

7
amount of time my significant other and I spend together and I often question whether or not I
should stay in this relationship with a scale from one (Strongly Disagree) to seven (Strongly
Agree). These numbers were reverse coded and averaged to find overall perceived satisfaction of
LDDRs and actual satisfaction in CPDRs and LDDRs.
Results
The data set (n=95) was reviewed and separated into three relationship categories as well
as different aspects of them including personal happiness, communication, and satisfaction.
These dependent variables add up to reflect overall relationship satisfaction and are contingent
on the independent variables such as the frequency and methods of communication between
partners in LDDRs. These exemplify the reality of satisfaction in LDDRs and the same process
was completed for perceptions of satisfaction in LDDRs by using survey responses of the single
participants. Hypothesis one, which claimed the reality of satisfaction from LDDRs is
misunderstood in a negative manner by UCSB students who are either single or in a CPDR, was
analyzed first. Perceived and real LDDR satisfactions were measured on an interval level Likerttype one to seven scale (one being not satisfactory and seven being very satisfactory). Perceived
satisfaction was a 3.144 on the scale whereas real LDDR satisfaction was a 4.629 yet 66.667% of
people in CPDRs claimed they would be willing to enter a LDDR. These results supported the
first hypothesis of the study. Secondly, the data supported the claim of a positive correlation
between the amount of communication between partners and satisfaction in LDDRs.
Communication was measured on a ratio level because frequency was calculated as the number
of times in a day or week, depending on the method. Satisfaction was once again measured on an
interval level with a Likert-type scale. On a scale of one to five (one being no communication
and five being consistent communication), LDDR communication (texting, phone calls, video

LDDR Satisfaction: Perceptions vs. Realities

8
calls, and Snapchat) was a 2.849 on the frequency scale. On a one to seven scale (one being not
satisfactory and seven being very satisfactory), satisfaction was a 4.629. There was a positive
correlation between the two at 0.183. Lastly, the study did not support a positive correlation
between couples who frequently video call and relationship satisfaction. On a scale of one to five
(one being never and five being every day), only threes and above were included in order to only
take into account frequent video callers. The average satisfaction of these frequent video call
users on a one to seven scale (one being not satisfactory and seven being very satisfactory) was
4.778. But, when the frequent video caller averages were correlated with relationship
satisfaction, the correlation was -0.0202. The study disproves the hypothesis stating more
frequent video calls results in higher levels of relationship satisfaction.
Discussion
The findings of this study relates to the previous research examined in many ways. First
off, it supports the idea that LDDRs are not more likely than CPDRs to discontinue. In this study,
the mean for LDDR Satisfaction is actually higher than CPDR Satisfaction. On a scale of one to
seven (one being not satisfactory and seven being very satisfactory), LDDR was 4.629 and
CPDR was 4.26. Also, the average length the LDDRs have been together (30.617 months) is
greater than the average length of the CPDRs (28.083 months).
Strengths and Critiques
The studys greatest strength was including people from all relationship types. This
inclusion provided the ability to analyze satisfaction perceptions and realities from all three
categories as well as directly compare CPDRs and LDDRs. The ultimate critique of this study is
the ratio of men to women in the sample compared to the ratio of men to women UCSB
undergraduate students. UCSB undergraduate students consist of 47% males and 53% females

LDDR Satisfaction: Perceptions vs. Realities

9
(Trust, 2012) whereas the study consisted of 14% male and 86% female participants. Because of
psychological discrepancies of how males vs. females view relationships and love, this could
have seriously skewed the results of LDDR satisfaction perceptions. Another critique is lack of
verification of the participant being a UCSB undergraduate student. Because we cannot prove
whether or not all the participants were UCSB undergraduate students, we cannot make this
assumption in our analysis and cannot generalize our findings. Also, a question should have been
included to examine the relationships level of importance to the participant. This would have
given the ability to exclude relationships that are not serious and exclusive. Lastly, 49% of
participants claimed to be in LDDRs and this may have been because of our distribution method
and lack of definition. Because participants volunteered, people in LDDRs were more likely to
participate due to personal interest and involvement in the subject. Also, we allowed the
participants to choose whether or not their relationships were long distance based on their
personal definition. This created discrepancies because everyones definitions differed. This
study would have had high external validity and generalizability if these weaknesses had been
avoided. If the study didnt have these weaknesses, the results could have been generalized to
UCSB undergraduate students and even college students in general. We were able to make one
causal statement regarding the positive correlation between communication and satisfaction in
LDDRs. Unfortunately we were unable to support our second causal statement regarding a
positive correlation between video calls and satisfaction in LDDRs.
Future Studies
Correcting the weaknesses mentioned above and turning them into additional strengths
can improve this study. Also, future researchers can go into further depth regarding the negative
perception of LDDRs and how this affects the outcome of LDDRs. Another interesting outlook

LDDR Satisfaction: Perceptions vs. Realities

10
on this subject is how social media affects relationship satisfaction. Social media aspects include
whether putting a relationship in the public eye or keeping private and not posting about it is
more beneficial and creates more stability. Also, reactions of CPDRs seeing posts about LDDRs
and vice versa and whether CPDR posts trigger jealousy in LDDR couples because the CPDRs
get to be together more often.

LDDR Satisfaction: Perceptions vs. Realities

11
References
Cameron, J. J. & Ross, M. (2007). In times of uncertainty: Predicting the survival of longdistance relationships. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147:(6), 581-606.
Lee, J. & Pistole, C. (2012). Predictors of satisfaction in geographically close and long-distance
relationships. Journal of counseling psychology, 59:(2), 303-313.
Maguire, 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, 38:(1), 27-46.
Singleton, R. A., & Straits, B. C. (2010). Approaches to social research (5th Edition). New York:
Oxford.
Trust, T. (2012, April 10). UCSB Undergraduate Population Infographic. The GradPost at UC
Santa Barbara. Retrieved June 3, 2014, from http://gradpost.ucsb.edu/life/2012/4/10
/ucsb-undergraduate-population-infographic.html
Van Horn, R. V., Arnone, A., Nesbitt, K., Desilets, L., Sears, T., Giffin, M., & Brudi, R. (1997).
Physical distance and interpersonal characteristics in college students romantic
relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 25-34.

LDDR Satisfaction: Perceptions vs. Realities

12
Appendix A
Request of consent in the Facebook post: You are being invited to participate in a research study
that examines satisfaction in close proximity relationships and long distance relationships. This
survey will also incorporate questions on perceptions of relationship satisfaction for those
participants who are single. This survey will take approximately 10 minutes to complete and will
be completely anonymous. This is no anticipated risk or discomfort for this survey but if the
participant is uncomfortable with a question/s, he or she can choose to skip the uncomfortable
portions or stop the survey all together. Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary
and there is no incentive given for completing the survey. The results of this study will be
presented in an analytical research paper for Communication 88 (Research Methods) in Spring
2014. By clicking the link to continue, you are authorizing the researchers to use the results of
the survey as well as acknowledging that you have read and understood the information
presented above.