Idealization and communication in long distance premarital relationships
Download
1 / 21

Idealization and Communication in Long-Distance Premarital Relationships - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 328 Views
  • Uploaded on

Idealization and Communication in Long-Distance Premarital Relationships. Laura Stafford and James R. Reske Ohio State University Journal of Family Relations 1990 - Hannah Jansen . Idealization and Communication in Long-Distance Premarital Relationships. Laura Stafford and James R. Reske

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Idealization and Communication in Long-Distance Premarital Relationships' - mayda


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Idealization and communication in long distance premarital relationships l.jpg

Idealization and Communication in Long-Distance Premarital Relationships

Laura Stafford and James R. Reske

Ohio State University

Journal of Family Relations 1990

-Hannah Jansen


Idealization and communication in long distance premarital relationships2 l.jpg

Idealization and Communication in Long-Distance Premarital Relationships

Laura Stafford and James R. Reske

Ohio State University

Journal of Family Relations 1990

-Hannah Jansen


Idealization and communication in long distance premarital relationships3 l.jpg

Idealization and Communication in Long-Distance Premarital Relationships

Laura Stafford and James R. Reske

Ohio State University

Journal of Family Relations 1990

-Hannah Jansen


Why study premarital relationships l.jpg
Why Study Premarital Relationships? 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)


So why study long distance relationships l.jpg
So why study Long Distance relationships? 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.


So what s the problem with idealization l.jpg
SO … what’s the problem with Idealization? Relationships

  • 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.


Hypothesis l.jpg
hypothesis Relationships

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)


Hypothesis cont l.jpg
Hypothesis cont. Relationships

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


Theoretical construct l.jpg
Theoretical Construct Relationships

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


Operational definitions instruments used l.jpg
Operational definitions (instruments used) Relationships

  • Questionnaire booklet

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


Operational definitions continued l.jpg
Operational definitions continued…. Relationships

  • 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


Slide12 l.jpg

3. Rubin’s Love Scale Relationships

Measures romantic Love construct

.84 internal consistency

4. Bienvenu’s Marital Communication Inventory (MCI)

A 19 item scale concerning the perceived quality of marital communication.

.93 split half reliability

………


Method participants l.jpg
Method/participants Relationships

  • 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


Procedure l.jpg
Procedure Relationships

  • All of the GC couples were seated in a communication laboratory and then asked to complete a questionnaire. Subjects weren’t 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)


Analysis l.jpg

2 separate multivariate analysis of variance were conducted: Relationships

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)

Analysis


Results means and standard deviations of dependant var by geographic location l.jpg
Results….. RelationshipsMeans and standard deviations of dependant var. by geographic location


Results cont correlations between interaction variables and relational variables l.jpg
Results cont… Relationshipscorrelations between interaction variables and relational variables


Results again l.jpg

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

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

Results .. Again!!!


Discussion l.jpg
Discussion Relationships

  • 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.


What i would change l.jpg
What I would change???? Relationships

  • Increase sample size, include older couples.

  • Continue study through marriage


The end l.jpg
The End!!! Relationships


ad