Long-Distance Romantic Couples: An Attachment Theoretical Perspective

LONG-DISTANCE ROMANTIC COUPLES: ANATTACHMENT THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

M. Carole PistolePurdue University

This article provides an attachment theoretical perspective of long-distance romantic rela-tionships (LDRs). Attachment applies specifically to the separation-reunion cycle that isan inherent aspect of LDRs. Attachment theory components and normative functioningare presented along with illustrative examples from LDR reports to demonstrate the the-ory’s relevance. Counseling implications, related to proximity maintenance and separationprotest, the attachment-caregiving interface, and other issues (e.g., culture), are followedby research considerations and the conclusion.

Long-distance romantic relationships (LDRs) are increasing among committed dating andmarried couples (Aylor, 2003; Weisser, 2006). In LDRs, partners choose to live and work indistal geographical locations, so that both partners can pursue desired career or education goals(Arditti & Kauffman, 2001; Weisser, 2006). As a result, LDR partners travel to reunite physi-cally for a short time, before separating again. Therefore, relational life becomes punctuated bya separation-reunion cycle. Nonetheless, counterintuitively, research suggests that LDRs are assatisfying and stable as geographically close relationships (GCRs; Stafford, 2005).

As a framework to understand the separation-reunion cycle, this article presents an attach-ment theoretical (Bowlby, 1969) perspective of LDRs, with support developed from nonattach-ment-based LDR literature. This interpretation is important, first, because attachment is a basisfor theory-driven therapy (Byng-Hall, 2001) and research (Mikulincer, Florian, Cowan, &Cowan, 2002), whereas LDR knowledge is underdeveloped and mostly atheoretical. Second, asStafford (2005) noted, early scholarship highlighted distress (e.g., loneliness, Guldner, 1996;emotional ups and downs, Westefeld & Liddell, 1982) and tended to portray LDRs as ‘‘inher-ently or uniformly problematic’’ (Stafford, 2005, p. 30). Attachment concepts normalize thedistress and constitute leverage for problem solving. Third, due to similar functioning across life(Bowlby), attachment may explain an LDR process that is alike for the married and nonmar-ried. Attachment results are often parallel for married and nonmarried samples; for example,for both, attachment security is associated with more effective communication (Mikulinceret al., 2002). Therefore, all the LDR literature, which is still meager, will be used to supportthe attachment perspective.

In this article, an overview of attachment theory is presented and illustrated with LDRexamples. Then, counseling issues are addressed, followed by research considerations and theconclusion. Although the literature uses discipline-based terms (i.e., ‘‘commuter marriage,’’ formarried partners; ‘‘LDRs’’ for nonmarried college students), here, ‘‘LDRs’’ refers to marriedand nonmarried couples but excludes live-apart-in-the-same-location couples (Holmes, 2004)and deployed military couples whose separation is nonvoluntary, lengthy, and possibly risky.

ADULT ROMANTIC ATTACHMENT THEORY

Attachment refers to a lifelong, organic behavioral system that accounts for bonding, secu-rity, affect, and behavior in emotionally important relationships (Bowlby, 1988; Mikulincer &Shaver, 2003, 2007). According to Bowlby (1979), the ‘‘formation of a bond is described as fall-ing in love, maintaining a bond as loving someone’’ (p. 130); and ‘‘no form of behavioris accompanied by stronger feeling than is attachment behavior’’ (Bowlby, 1969, p. 209).

M. Carole Pistole, PhD, Department of Educational Studies, Purdue University.

Address correspondence to M. Carole Pistole, Purdue University, Educational Studies BRNG, 100 N.

University St., West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-2098; E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Marital and Family Therapydoi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2009.00169.xApril 2010, Vol. 36, No. 2, 115–125

April 2010 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 115

Attachment processes (e.g., separation protest) occur throughout life in specific, select relation-ships. In love relationships, the partners share both attachment and caregiving bonds (Bowlby,1969, 1988; Kunce & Shaver, 1994). The attachment-caregiving bonds manifest as a goal-corrected partnership, in which the partners coordinate and adjust behavior to achieve motiva-tional goals. When one partner exhibits attachment cues, the other partner is motivated toprovide caregiving functions: (a) a safe haven, such as comforting or reassurance; (b) a securebase, such as guidance when needed or an anchor to support work, learning, or personalgrowth (Feeney & Collins, 2004); and (c) protection from internal or external threats (Bowlby,1969). These functions emanate from the organic, lifelong caregiving behavioral system, areaccompanied by strong emotion, constitute accessibility to the partner, and culminate in thepartner’s felt security. For both attachment and caregiving, adult behavior reflects an internal,template-like schema or working model that is usually linked to childhood history.

LDRS–AN ATTACHMENT PERSPECTIVE

The LDR literature is not based on, but does contain many examples that are consistentwith, attachment theory components. For instance, attachment’s emotional bond is reflectedin (a) a married partner report that the LDR worked because of ‘‘love, but . . . there’s a lotmore to it . . . like a glue that kind of holds you together’’ (Magnuson & Norem, 1999, p.130), and (b) college students’ view that the LDR partner was ‘‘the one’’ (Arditti & Kauff-man, 2001, p. 55). In addition, attachment processes (i.e., proximity maintenance, separationprotest, and interface with other behavioral systems) are directly relevant to the partners’ dis-tal functioning.

Proximity MaintenanceThe sine non qua of attachment is the tendency to maintain proximity to the partner and,

thereby, keep the attachment system deactivated and attachment affect regulated (Bowlby,1988). More specifically, the person monitors the partner’s whereabouts in order to maintain arange of proximity that keeps the partner and caregiving functions accessible. The range ofproximity, which is the set goal, results in felt security and is achieved using verbal and behav-ioral, emotionally mediated communication. Adults’ set goal is not organized physically; insteadproximity is maintained via ‘‘physical orientation, eye contact, nonverbal expressions, andaffect, as well as conversations about personal matters such as separation and reunion, feelings,and shared activities and plans’’ (Marvin & Britner, 1999, p. 57). Although most obvious whenthe attachment system is active, proximity maintenance is represented in accessing mental repre-sentations of the partner, daily activities that involve spending time with the partner (Hazan,Gur-Yaish, & Campa, 2004), and leaving-and-returning to the partner as needed for safe havenand secure base functions (Bowlby, 1988).

In LDRs, partners can maintain proximity across the geographic distance by accessingmental representations or communicating via cards, phone calls, emails, or webcam. The sal-ience of LDR proximity maintenance is apparent in research. Married participants noted losing(a) everyday talk and sharing (Gerstel & Gross, 1984; Govaerts & Dixon, 1988), (b) the part-ner’s presence (Gerstel & Gross, 1982), (c) daily companionship (Magnuson & Norem, 1999),and (d) ‘‘the small connecting links of daily life’’ (Johnson, 1987, p. 6). Without referring toattachment, Gerstel and Gross (1984) interpreted the lost routine behavior as the physical prox-imity that contributes to the partners’ ability to provide emotional support to each other, as isconsistent with proximity maintenance keeping the partner accessible for caregiving functions.In addition, LDR research found that married couples (N = 100) felt ‘‘there is too much psy-chic distance’’ (Johnson, p. 6), and college students were significantly less satisfied when theircontact was more restricted (i.e., lived over 250 miles apart for more than 6 months; Holt &Stone, 1988).

Separation ProtestSeparation protest, a hallmark of attachment (Hazan et al., 2004), occurs when the system

is activated by (a) the person’s being sick, tired, distressed, unsure of the partner’s location, or

116 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2010

afraid; (b) the person’s set goal (i.e., comfortable range of proximity) being exceeded; (c)the partner’s being inaccessible; or (d) the person’s being in a novel or unfamiliar situation(Bowlby, 1969). In addition, the threat of attachment disruption arouses separation protest,even if the separation is voluntary and anticipated (Bowlby). Once the attachment system isactivated, the person exhibits behavior designed to restore proximity and security. Normativereactions include sadness, crying, loneliness, anger, guilt, restlessness, contact seeking, clinging,and yearning or calling for the partner (Bowlby, 1973, 1979; Fraley & Shaver, 1998). Proximity,which deactivates the attachment system, can be restored physically (e.g., in very intense situa-tions), psychologically (e.g., internal representations, memories), or symbolically (e.g., pictures,phone calls; Bowlby, 1979; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003).

The LDR separation-reunion cycle would activate the attachment system and result in sep-aration protest, because the separation signals a greater risk of the partner’s being inaccessibleif needed (Bowlby, 1973). Indeed, separation protest is a consistent theme in LDR anecdotalreports and research. Married partners spontaneously speak about separation protest: (a)‘‘I grieve every Monday’’ (Magnuson & Norem, 1999, p. 131); (b) ‘‘The hardest part of thelong-distance relationship . . . is the good-byes at the airport. ‘Oh, the tears’’’ (Cheers, 1996,p. 3); and (c) ‘‘No matter how many times we parted, it was never easy’’ (Shanor, 1987, p. 3).Married couples viewed the separation as stressful (Johnson, 1987); and South African intervie-wees missed their partners intensely (Rabe, 2001). Married and college individuals reportedemotional highs and lows (Groves & Horm-Wingerd, 1991; Westefeld & Liddell, 1982). Loneli-ness, a preeminent separation protest signal, was found in (a) interviews with married AfricanAmerican (Jackson, Brown, & Patterson-Stewart, 2000) and married community (Gerstel, 1977)couples, and (b) data-based college student research (Guldner, 1996). In another college studentstudy (Sahlstein, 2004, N = 20), couples reported that separation was marked by missing, pin-ing, and longing for the partner; feeling let down, sad, and disappointed; and feeling a sense ofloss. Sahlstein concluded, ‘‘The time together creates a ‘longing’ or ‘pining’ for their partnerthat occurs right after they have spent time together’’ (p. 699), as is consistent with separationprotest (also see Guldner).

Interface With Other Behavioral SystemsThe attachment system also interfaces with other behavioral systems, specifically, the

caregiving and exploratory systems. Like attachment, caregiving fulfills a protective function(Bowlby, 1969; Marvin & Britner, 1999). However, the exploratory system’s biological functionis ‘‘learning the skills necessary for more self-reliant survival, in terms of both individual skillsand smooth integration into the social group’’ (Marvin & Britner, 1999, p. 47). The exploratorysystem is activated by novel or complex stimuli (Bowlby, 1969) and includes learning (Kobak,1999), work, play, creativity, travel, hobbies, and pursuing important personal goals (Feeney &Collins, 2004). In cyclical fashion, a new job or prolonged exploration can activate the attach-ment system, which then inhibits exploratory activity and prioritizes attachment behavior togain proximity to the partner. The person’s attachment signals activate the partner’s caregivingsystem; and the partner’s proximity, safe haven, or secure base caregiving deactivates the per-son’s attachment system, providing the security needed to reactivate the exploratory system.

Research suggests that LDRs interfere with but do not eclipse caregiving. A lost safe havenfunction is reflected in partners’ statements about not having ‘‘an emotional outlet in the formof an interested, sympathetic listener’’ (Gross, 1980, p. 570), not having ‘‘my partner therewhen I need him’’ (Johnson, 1987, p. 6), and feeling ‘‘guilty about not being available [to thepartner]’’ (Johnson, p. 7). In contrast, effective safe haven caregiving is evident in a report thatphone conversations ‘‘reduce loneliness and provide a sense of security, as well as limited emo-tional support’’ (Gerstel & Gross, 1982, p. 81); and the secure base is exemplified in an LDRhusband’s statement about his wife being as ‘‘steady as a rock. She is like an anchor for me’’(Gerstel & Gross, 1984, p. 55). Theoretically, caregiving is also implicit in reports of increasedautonomy and stronger relationships (Arditti & Kauffman, 2001; Magnuson & Norem, 1999).

Exploratory system outcomes are evident when U.S. and South African married couplesstate that their careers benefited from the LDR (Magnuson & Norem, 1999; Rabe, 2001). Theexploratory system is also reflected in married individuals’ and couples’ views of separation


positives: being ‘‘totally engaged’’ (Johnson, 1987, p. 7) in work; having increased ‘‘amount andintensity of work’’ (Gerstel, 1977, p. 363); and being able to ‘‘concentrate more fully on theirwork’’ (Gerstel & Gross, 1982, p. 80). For some, career development and satisfaction were themost beneficial LDR outcomes (Groves & Horm-Wingerd, 1991). As stated by a married LDRpartner, ‘‘I feel alive, like me. I’m doing what I enjoy’’ (Jackson et al., 2000, p. 26). Both dualcareer and college LDR partners noted similar exploratory system advantages, such as morenovelty (Stafford, Merolla, & Castle, 2006), more autonomy for getting work done (Gerstel &Gross, 1987; Magnuson & Norem, 1999; Sahlstein, 2004), and increased relationship, communi-cation, and personal skills (Groves & Horm-Wingerd, 1991; Mietzner & Lin, 2005). The explor-atory system is evident in (a) Jackson and colleagues’ conclusion that, in their work, thepartners were expressing ‘‘a core part of themselves’’ (p. 26); and (b) college students’ reporting:‘‘We both learned to live our own lives—but still be involved in each others’’ (Mietzner & Lin,2005, p. 197), and ‘‘I learned how to have a life and a boyfriend at the same time’’ (Mietzner &Lin, 2005, p. 196).

In addition, the link between the exploratory, attachment, and caregiving systems is impor-tant. Although adults’ exploratory excursions are longer than children’s, at some point, distalcaregiving is no longer effective because the set goal’s comfortable range of proximity isexceeded. The person becomes tense or anxious, which preconsciously triggers attachment sys-tem activation (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2005). Exploratory behavior is inhibited, and the personseeks reunion with the partner. Consistent with this process, one husband reported that ‘‘it wastime to visit his wife when his creativity seemed to be waning’’ (Gerstel & Gross, 1984, p. 69).

Summary of Attachment Processes in LDRsEven in adulthood, the attachment system is influential; for example, people monitor the

partner’s proximity, thereby preserving the option to obtain caregiving functions if needed, forinstance, if alarming internal or external stimuli arouse fear (Bowlby, 1979). Although adultsdo not usually require the physical proximity needed in childhood, ‘‘the perception of physicalaccessibility remains the most fundamental aspect of an attachment figure’s availability’’(Kobak, 1999, p. 31). The separation and geographical distance that characterize LDRs imperilor compromise open communication and the partner’s accessibility (i.e., the condition for feltsecurity). Typically, communication is more cumbersome or blocked, and travel and time arerequired should physical contact be needed. Therefore, despite the separation being a choicethat benefits the partners’ education or career (i.e., exploratory system) goals, the LDR com-prises an attachment threat, with maintaining the partner’s accessibility and monitoring thepartner’s whereabouts being more challenging.

Throughout the life span, an attachment figure’s inaccessibility triggers similar emotionalreactions (Bowlby, 1979; Kobak, 1999). Despite cognitively recognizing that the partner’sinaccessibility is only temporary, LDR partners respond to separation with attachment systemactivation and proximity-seeking behavior. Separation protest, before, during, or afterleave-taking, is evident in the person’s searching for the partner, trying to regain contact, andverifying that the partner is not returning, for instance, by mentally replaying leave-takingimages and scripts. As the person accepts or emotionally concedes that proximity and physi-cal accessibility will not recur, typical reactions include sadness, missing the person, andloneliness.

To adapt to the LDR geographic distance and separation, the partners must renegotiate thegoal-corrected partnership. Initially, each partner’s set goal is likely attuned to more frequent,possibly daily, physical proximity. In the LDR, the partners adjust their individual set goals andadapt to changes as they develop and engage in distally communicated (e.g., phone calls) andsymbolic (e.g., pictures) proximity and caregiving. The distal strategies supply enough safe havencaregiving to deactivate the attachment system and prompt exploratory system behavior. Due tomodified set goals, the attachment threat may attenuate as LDR experience verifies that thecouple can preserve enough proximity to obtain sufficient care and security, at least for a while.This attachment and caregiving confidence optimize exploratory system behavior (Kobak, 1999),with LDR positives (e.g., career satisfaction) possibly compensating for LDR negatives (e.g.,separation, travel). Across time, the couple organize their work and relationship activities


around a separation-reunion cycle, with periodic physical reunions, because the attachmentsystem can still be activated if the set goal is exceeded.

COUNSELING IMPLICATIONS

Relationship and family therapists might consider attachment (Bowlby, 1988) when LDRcouples or individuals seek therapy distressed by, for example, communication difficulties (cf.Holt & Stone, 1988). Because attachment concerns, which can be masked in conflict (Kobak,1999), are fundamental, they need to be addressed before other difficulties can be resolved(Wynne, 1984). Difficulties may be resolved relatively quickly for clients who are confused byor distressed over attachment-related LDR processes, whereas other clients who have a historyof separation or loss may benefit from an approach that also considers other family issues. Forthese clients, therapists might consult attachment-based therapeutic approaches (Bowlby; Byng-Hall, 1995, 1999; Diamond, 2005; Johnson, 2004; Woolley & Johnson, 2005). Or, becauseattachment concepts are compatible with family and other counseling theories (Lopez, 1995),the therapist may focus on attachment while using a different, preferred theoretical framework.

Proximity Maintenance and Separation ProtestIn therapy, proximity maintenance and separation protest may be a primary concern, even

for clients who do not perceive the LDR as relevant to their distress. Couples who maintainedproximity with physical cues (e.g., being in the same room) may be unhappy about the loss oftogetherness and may not have developed new communication cues to maintain proximity and,thereby, keep separation emotion quieted. To examine this hypothesis, the therapist mightassess how prepared the couple was for LDR-related attachment issues. If, as research suggests,their decision making focused on the commuting distance, jobs, and the temporary nature ofthe LDR (Anderson & Spruill, 1993; Magnuson & Norem, 1999), the partners’ distress may belinked to not having anticipated and planned for the normative and foreseeable reactions toseparation. The couple might benefit from coaching that (a) identifies the function of previoustogetherness, such as having confidence that the partner would ‘‘be there’’ if needed; and (b)clarifies accompanying emotional ups and downs as separation emotion. As a result, the prob-lem is reframed as solvable.

Family therapists may need to validate the expected, normative LDR separation emotion,even if the clients expected to be sad or lonely when separating and apart. For example, thefamily therapist may comment empathetically, ‘‘We do seem to be wired this way . . . it’s justhard for couples to part and be apart.’’ With more emotional acceptance, the clients can thinkabout distal proximity maintenance strategies; for instance, what kind of communicationmethod and frequency are needed to provide a sense of the partner’s being accessible for care-giving. Some couples may find that email and cell phone text messages are a quick and easyform of proximity management that they can use frequently without interfering in each other’swork. To ensure psychological proximity, they might also want to prioritize and dedicate somedistal relationship time that might be spent in a phone conversation, which allows hearing thepartner’s voice, or a webcam conversation, which allows views of the partner. In general, itcould be that the LDR will benefit if the partners can identify several strategies and understandhow each is useful.

Proximity maintenance and separation emotion may also be addressed with specific, sys-tematic reunion plans (cf. Arditti & Kauffman, 2001; Kobak, 1999; Marvin & Britner, 1999),which can expand the conversation to include additional attachment elements that are pertinentto proximity and so enhance the effectiveness of planning. For instance, clients may benefit byrealizing that reunion plans set limits on the separation and can stave off separation protest bypsychologically ensuring proximity and partner accessibility. Nonetheless, to develop effective,systematic reunions, the therapeutic conversation needs to address both partners’ preferred,comfortable range of proximity (i.e., attachment set goals). The therapist can encourage clientsto explore their comfort with being apart in a number of circumstances, such as when engagedin work, when sick or stressed, and when apart for 2 or 3 weeks. By clarifying the attachmentprocess and its functioning for each partner, clients may better use their idiosyncratic set goals


to negotiate the goal-corrected partnership. For example, by recognizing the flexibility andlimits in each partner’s proximity set goal and the conditions under which the range isexceeded, Jane and John can better understand why their own comfort with being apart whileworking changes to wanting to talk to the partner if stressed from a bad day or after a certaintime frame (e.g., 5 days). Then, each person is better prepared to recognize and takeinto account the partner’s differing need, which leads to more effective negotiation of thepartnership.

As part of this therapeutic conversation, the therapist may also validate and normalize anydisruptive experience that occurs if there is any resurgence of separation emotion when reunionis near or if time apart becomes more prolonged. Partners may feel that their separations are toolong, regardless of how frequently they schedule reunions (cf. Stafford, 2005). The impendingreunion may bring joy (Bowlby, 1988) but may also involve some resurgence of separation emo-tion because of an acute awareness of being apart. If the couple can verbalize the contradictoryfeelings and recognize the attachment meaning, they will be in a better position to determine iftheir reunions are scheduled frequently enough to meet their set goals. In addition, there may betimes that reunion plans are cancelled or delayed by travel-related complexities (e.g., weather;sudden, unexpected work responsibilities; fluctuating gasoline prices or airline fares and sched-ules). The person’s LDR-modified set goal may be exceeded if reunion is disrupted, and separa-tion protest may emerge. Normative reactions (e.g., seeking the partner) may be thwarted by thesame circumstances that delay travel. If separation protest becomes more intense, the client mayeven feel confused because of cognitively understanding the ongoing separation but, nonetheless,continuing to be upset. In processing such events, the therapist might coach the clients in a dis-cussion about the protective function of the attachment system, eliciting examples of when thepartner’s safe haven or secure base caregiving may have alleviated near-overwhelming internalanxiety. This understanding along with the therapist’s validation may help the clients accept thestrength of attachment emotion and motivation (cf. Bowlby, 1969). Clients may also benefit frominoculation against reunion disruptions. Then if unable to visit, perhaps they can draw on theirmemory of the therapeutic conversation (e.g., ‘‘We talked about this in one of our sessions . . .the feelings are really strong’’) and implement previously proposed psychological or symbolicstrategies (e.g., a longer than usual phone conversation or using pictures to make a couplealbum) to allay separation emotion and feel proximity to the partner.

Attachment-Caregiving InterfaceSome LDR clients may also need to explore how the geographical separation relates to

interfacing behavioral systems, for instance, the perceived threat to caregiving accessibility. Thefamily therapist might begin addressing attachment-caregiving issues by saying to Jane, when sheis upset about being apart from John, ‘‘It’s as though you might need John . . . but he might notbe there.’’ Indeed, geographically distal partners may, at times, be unable to respond to the otherpartner’s attachment signals. If proximity and caregiving cannot be obtained from the partner,attachment system activation would continue. Therefore, each partner needs to identify ‘‘back-up’’ caregivers (e.g., parent, close friend) and psychological or symbolic proximity strategies torely on if the partner is not accessible. For instance, Jane may obtain comfort and safe havencaregiving by wearing something that reminds her of John. Or John may obtain short-termsecure base caregiving by asking himself, ‘‘How would Jane guide me in this situation? . . . Oh,she would say . . .’’ These self-care strategies can draw on memory-based partner representationsand minimize separation emotion and the possibility that the partners inappropriately attributenegative characteristics to the self (e.g., unable to manage affect) or the partner (e.g., not caring).

In contrast, LDR partners may be motivated to provide caregiving but fail to understanddistal caregiving signals. For example, Jane might be irritated if John calls unexpectedly in themiddle of the work day, instead of waiting for their scheduled ‘‘relationship time.’’ To enhanceopen communication, the family therapist may assist the client in a dialogue with the partnerso that both partners better recognize attachment cues and caregiving feelings and behaviors.Through questions and comments, the therapist can guide John, first, in recognizing that hiscall to Jane is attachment behavior that reflects his desire for caregiving due to stress andrelated attachment system activation. Once he realizes that his set goal was temporarily altered,


John may further realize that his attachment behavior forces an accommodative change forJane, who cannot anticipate his experience or the phone call. As well, Jane’s sensitivity to theattachment cue may be hampered by a competing exploratory system goal (e.g., a work dead-line; cf. George & Solomon, 1999). With increased attachment-related understanding and thetherapist’s coaching, rather than getting more stressed when Jane is curt or abrupt on thephone, John may be able to clearly verbalize his caregiving goal by saying, for example, ‘‘I’mupset by something at work; so I want to hear your voice, just for a minute . . . it helps.’’ Itmay also be helpful for the therapist to point out that distal caregiving can be difficult. Becauseof having limited access to visual cues and physical behaviors, LDR partners may not as easilyrecognize attachment cues. Because they cannot rely on proximal, physical caregiving strategies,they also may not as easily respond to attachment cues; so the therapist’s coaching may alsohelp the partner to learn verbal caregiving responses. For example, Jane may respond to John,‘‘I do want to be there for you, but it’s harder when I can’t hold you, like I do when we’retogether . . . so, for now, consider yourself hugged.’’ With greater understanding of each otherand more sophisticated communication, the partners may more effectively negotiate the part-nership in usual and stressful conditions.

Other IssuesTherapists need also to consider additional issues when working with LDR clients and

the expected attachment-related processes. First, some LDR clients may remain troubled afterclarifying and developing strategies to deal with their LDR attachment-caregiving reactions.Especially for clients with loss or other family-related difficulties, coaching might also bedirected at rethinking the LDR decision, using the additional information (e.g., LDR experi-ence) now available. While examining if the exploratory system’s LDR career benefits offsetthe attachment reactions, some clients may decide to pursue additional therapy, perhaps toincrease attachment security. Others may determine that the costs are greater than the bene-fits and discuss how, and when, to end the LDR by, for example, living in one residencewhile keeping the higher salaried job (cf. Rabe, 2001). For these clients, due to as many asone-third of relationships dissolving when the partners transition to a GCR (Stafford &Merolla, 2007; Stafford et al., 2006), the family therapist may coach the client(s) to anticipatethe need to renegotiate the goal-corrected partnership once they are no longer in distal loca-tions. Finally, some clients may decide to break up. The distance is a blame-free ‘‘story’’ forrelational demise, but clients may still identify gains from the relationship and areas for per-sonal growth.

Second, therapists need to listen carefully and think critically about how diversity issuesmay influence attachment or LDRs in unknown ways that need to be considered in counseling.At the very least, therapists can wonder, perhaps aloud, about whether cultural expectationsare embedded in attachment- or LDR-related distress. For instance, although currently in flux,traditional Hindu-based Asian Indian marriage is a parent-arranged launching of a joint-fami-lies close network, with the married partners’ falling in love viewed as potentially disruptive tofamily closeness and obligations (Madathil & Sandhu, 2008). Gender issues are relevant, andthough women are expected to be loyal to the husband, the parent–adult child relationshipmay be more central than the couple’s (Rastogi, 2007). The couple’s primary attachment may,therefore, remain with their parents, and any partner attachment may develop as hierarchicallysecondary. Because of collectivistic intergenerational family values, having or terminating anLDR may be a joint-family (vs. a couple) decision, with elders and men having more power (cf.Madathil & Sandhu, 2008). In U.S. counseling, the therapist would need to take into accountthe couple’s and families’ overt or covert internalized traditional values and acculturation,including biculturalism and any older generation’s losses due to changing values. For instance,an LDR-attachment ⁄ cultural complexity might arise for a couple in a traditional marriageshould a wife’s mother resist a husband-desired LDR. Then, a wife’s distress could reflectLDR-specific attachment conflict, which may be framed as loyalty to the husband versus cultur-ally appropriate respect for the mother’s hierarchical position and wisdom (cf. Rastogi, 2007).In contrast, if the wife’s mother supports the LDR, the primary or secondary mother-attach-ment might be used, even distally (cf. Rastogi & Wampler, 1999), to mitigate attachment-


related LDR issues. Similar reasoning might be relevant to other collectivist cultures (e.g.,Mexican American) with different religious traditions. In general, when considering diversityissues, the therapist may use the family values to connect with clients and frame interventions(cf. Rastogi, 2007).

Third, the LDR-attachment understandings may be applied to other work-related partnerseparations, though military deployment, international study, or media-related assignments (e.g.,on-location filming, war ⁄ event news coverage) may be similar to and different from dual-careerLDRs. In terms of similarity, deployment would trigger attachment and caregiving concerns(Vormbrock, 1993), as would international study or distal work assignments, with couples need-ing to maintain proximity across distance. They may, however, think of their situation as nonvo-luntary and consider themselves ‘‘apart’’ rather than in an LDR. In addition, deployment isoften lengthy, associated with risk, and communication may at times be blocked. Internationalstudents, leaving a partner in the home country, may also face a lengthy separation as well as anexpensive reunion. For a student from a collectivistic culture, attachment-related repercussions(e.g., anger) may occur in the expanded family, if the LDR decision and its functioning violatemarriage-related values. In these LDRs, additional emotion and cognition, both positive (e.g.,‘‘the family’s contributing to the country’’) and negative (e.g., ‘‘she shouldn’t leave her husbandto study abroad’’), may ameliorate or exacerbate the LDR-attachment issues.

RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS

Researchers and therapists need to consider three other points related to an attachmentorganization of LDRs. First, this article focused on normative attachment-caregiving processes.Because research indicates that secure attachment is associated with more effective relationaland career behavior (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), attachment orientations (e.g., avoidance, anx-iety) need to be examined in LDRs. For instance, the avoidantly attached manage attachmentaffect by defensively suppressing the attachment system and failing to notice attachment cues,whereas the anxiously attached have a continuously active attachment system and almost con-stantly monitor and seek the partner’s accessibility (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). There are afew LDR findings that may exemplify attachment orientations in LDRs. For instance, one part-ner reported being bothered by the other partner’s working during reunion (Gerstel & Gross,1984). This behavior, which violates the LDR segmenting of relational and work time (Sahl-stein, 2004), could reflect the second partner’s desire for the low emotional involvement that isassociated with high attachment avoidance (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). In addition, a collegestudent’s comment that ‘‘the need to talk to their partner was more important than anything’’(Arditti & Kauffman, 2001, p. 51) may reflect high attachment anxiety. Consistent with theseindicators, research (Pistole, Roberts, & Mosko, in press; Roberts & Pistole, 2009) suggests thatattachment orientations are prevalent but may function differently in LDRs. For example,lower attachment avoidance, rather than secure attachment, predicted higher LDR commitmentand satisfaction.

Attachment orientations might also be pertinent to maintaining relational stability, forinstance, during LDR-GCR transitions. Research (Stafford et al., 2006) indicates that as manyas one-third of LDRs may break up after transitioning to a GCR. In general, secure attachmentsare more stable than avoidant attachments, with anxious attachments also less stable thoughpartners stay longer in unsatisfying relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Post-LDR-transition breakups may be linked to attachment orientation. Because attachment behavior’sintensity abates as partners know each other a longer time, set-goal negotiation and separationemotion may attenuate as partners are able to confidently predict the partner’s distal accessi-bility. A transition to a GCR would require again realigning set goals and renegotiating thepartnership, while missing LDR positives such as autonomy (cf. Stafford et al., 2006). Attach-ment orientations are likely relevant to both attachment emotion attenuating and renegotiationof the partnership.

In addition, there may be unique attachment issues associated with what Dainton andAylor (2001) called different types of LDRs (e.g., some vs. no face-to-face interaction). Forinstance, the securely attached, who more effectively access internal representations (Mikulincer


& Shaver, 2007), may maintain proximity psychologically or symbolically across relativelylonger time periods. In contrast, the anxiously attached may need more voice (e.g., phone call)or face-to-face (e.g., webcam) communication and more frequent contact and reunions.

Second, some LDR couples have children; yet child-parent attachment-caregiving has notbeen examined. Reports (Carter, 1992; Gross, 1980; Jackson et al., 2000) reveal parental pain,guilt, and worry due to (a) the LDR partner having less input into children’s lives, and (b) theLDR causing children emotional stress. A South African LDR partner noted younger children‘‘waking up at night crying for ‘daddy’’’ (Rabe, 2001, p. 282). Other parents feared ‘‘that theiryoung children will have trouble with . . . ‘insecurity’’’ (Gerstel & Gross, 1987, p. 426). Thereports expose a potential LDR attachment-caregiving vulnerability for families, that is, thechild’s possible insecure attachment. Because childhood insecure attachment can be related topsychopathology (Kobak, 1999), research needs to provide a knowledge base on this issue; andtherapists need to be alert to attachment and caregiving issues for LDR parents’ children.

Third, although the attachment and caregiving behavioral systems are organic and univer-sal, demographic diversities need to be examined, because attachment-caregiving expectationsand behavior are culturally mediated (Bowlby, 1969; Rothbaum, Rosen, Ujiie, & Uchida, 2002;Van Ijzendoorn & Sagi, 1999). For instance, some South African LDR partners were expectedto live with family and had responsibilities such as meal preparation (Rabe, 2001). Also, cultur-ally relevant exploratory system issues were expressed in African American LDR reports(Carter, 1992; Cheers, 1996; Starling, 2000), for example, ‘‘Community is very importantamong African Americans . . . . The lack of community is the hardest for me’’ (Jackson et al.,2000, p. 29). Therefore, culturally relevant LDR-attachment research is merited. For example,for Asian American Indian or other couples in an arranged marriage, is the primary attachmentto parents or the partner? How do collectivistic values influence LDR decision making and thepartners’ attachment-related comfort in the LDR? Finally, few LDR studies (except Rabe,2001) include nonheterosexual partners, and attachment differences for married and nonmarriedLDR partners are relatively unexamined. The theory discussed in this article may provide abasis for further LDR-attachment qualitative and quantitative investigations that can alertcounselors to diversity or other issues that may function subtly and invisibly.

CONCLUSION

This article illuminates how attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988) consolidates and informsessential LDR issues (e.g., the separation–reunion cycle). In a sense, the LDR is, perhaps, theepitome of the behavior pattern identified by Bowlby (1979): moving away from the securebase, while ‘‘maintaining contact and sooner or later returning’’ (p. 132). LDRs involve more,however, than attachment theory, as is clear in LDR theory-based research, using idealization(Stafford & Merolla, 2007; Stafford et al., 2006) and uncertainty (Dainton & Aylor, 2001)frameworks, that yielded useful knowledge. Nonetheless, the attachment perspective contributesto knowledge about why LDRs can be a viable, if nonintuitive, committed relationship form.In addition to linking meaningful, emotional issues, attachment addresses concerns that arecentral to the romantic love relationship, which is ‘‘the most important thing in most people’slives’’ (Hinde, 1995, p. 1) and the foundation of many U.S. marriages (Roberts, 1992). Usingattachment theory, this article reframes symptoms and distress as normative attachment systemfunctioning that LDR partners can live with and resolve as they manage the goal-correctedpartnership. LDRs are, thus, cast in a more balanced light, as is consistent with their being sta-ble, satisfying relationships that meet the partners’ career and relationship goals.

REFERENCES

Anderson, E. A., & Spruill, J. W. (1993). The dual-career commuter family: A lifestyle on the move. Marriage

and Family Review, 19, 131–147.

Arditti, J. A., & Kauffman, M. (2001). Staying close when apart: Intimacy and meaning in long-distance dating

relationships. In M. Coleman & L. Ganong (Eds.), Points and counterpoints: Controversial relationships and

family issues in the 21st century (pp. 51–55). Los Angeles: Roxbury.


Aylor, B. A. (2003). Maintaining long-distance relationships. In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining

relationships through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural variations (pp. 127–139). Mahway,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. I1: Separation. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistock.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York: Basic Books.

Byng-Hall, J. (1995). Creating a secure family base: Some implications of attachment theory for family therapy.

Family Process, 34, 45–58.

Byng-Hall, J. (1999). Family and couple therapy: Toward greater security. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),

Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 625–645). New York: Guilford.

Byng-Hall, J. (2001). Attachment as a base for family and couple therapy. Child Psychology & Psychiatry Review,

6, 31–36.

Carter, J. H. (1992, February). Commuter marriages [Electronic version]. Black Enterprise, 22(7), p. 246.

Retrieved September 16, 2005, from http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=afh&an=

9202174223

Cheers, D. M. (1996, April). How ‘‘South Africa’s Oprah’’ keeps a transatlantic romance alive [Electronic ver-

sion]. Ebony, 51(6), p. 52, 5p, 10c. Retrieved September 16, 2005, from http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=afh&an=9603193818

Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2001). A relational uncertainty analysis of jealousy, trust, and maintenance in long-

distance versus geographically close relationships. Communication Quarterly, 49, 172–188.

Diamond, G. S. (2005). Attachment-based family therapy for depressed and anxious adolescents. In J. L. Lebow

(Ed.), Handbook of clinical family therapy (pp. 17–41). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2004). Interpersonal safe haven and secure base caregiving processes in adult-

hood. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications

(pp. 300–338. ). New York: Guilford.

Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Airport separations: A naturalistic study of adult attachment dynamics in

separating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1198–1212.

George, C., & Solomon, J. (1999). Attachment and caregiving: The caregiving behavioral system. In J. Cassidy &

P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 649–670). New

York: Guilford.

Gerstel, N. (1977). The feasibility of commuter marriage. In P. J. Stein, J. Richmond, & N. Hannon (Eds.), The

family: Functions, conflicts and symbols (pp. 357–367). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Gerstel, N., & Gross, H. (1982). Commuter marriages: A review. Marriage and Family Review, 5, 71–93.

Gerstel, N., & Gross, H. (1984). Commuter marriage: A study of work and family. New York: Guilford.

Gerstel, N., & Gross, H. (1987). Commuter marriage: A microcosm of career and family conflict. In N. Gerstel &

H. E. Gross (Eds.), Families and work (pp. 422–433). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Govaerts, K., & Dixon, D. N. (1988). . . . until careers do us part: Vocational and marital satisfaction in the

dual-career commuter marriage. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 11, 265–281.

Gross, H. E. (1980). Dual-career couples who live apart: Two types. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 567–576.

Groves, M. M., & Horm-Wingerd, D. M. (1991). Commuter marriages: Personal, family and career issues. Soci-

ology and Social Research, 75(4), 212–217.

Guldner, G. T. (1996). Long-distance romantic relationships: Prevalence and separation-related symptoms in

college students. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 289–296.

Hazan, C., Gur-Yaish, N., & Campa, M. (2004). What does it mean to be attached? In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simp-

son (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 55–85). New York: Guilford.

Hinde, R. A. (1995). A suggested structure for a science of relationships. Personal Relationships, 2, 1–15.

Holmes, M. (2004). An equal distance? Individualisation, gender and intimacy in distance relationships. The

Sociological Review, 52, 180–200.

Holt, P. A., & Stone, G. L. (1988). Needs, coping strategies, and coping outcomes associated with long-distance

relationships. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 136–141.

Jackson, A. P., Brown, R. P., & Patterson-Stewart, K. E. (2000). African American families in dual-career com-

muter marriages: An investigation of their experiences. The Family Journal, 8, 22–37.

Johnson, S. E. (1987). Weaving the threads: Equalizing professional and personal demands faced by commuting

career couples. Journal of NAWDAC, 50, 3–10.

Johnson, S. M. (2004). A guide for healing couple relationships. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult

attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 367–387). New York: Guilford.

Kobak, R. (1999). The emotional dynamics of disruptions in attachment relationships: Implications for theory,

research, and clinical intervention. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,

research, and clinical applications (pp. 21–43). New York: Guilford.


Kunce, L. J., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). An attachment-theoretical approach to caregiving in romantic relationships.

In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 5, pp. 205–237). London:

Jessica Kingsley.

Lopez, F. G. (1995). Attachment theory as an integrative framework for family counseling. The Family Journal:

Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 3, 11–17.

Madathil, J., & Sandhu, D. S. (2008). Infidelity in Asian Indian marriages: Implications for counseling and

psychotherapy. The Family Journal: Counseling and Psychotherapy for Couples and Families, 16, 338–343.

Magnuson, S., & Norem, K. (1999). Challenges of higher-education couples in commuter marriages: Insights for

couples and counselors who work with them. The Family Journal, 7, 125–133.

Marvin, R. S., & Britner, P. A. (1999). Normative development: The ontogeny of attachment. In J. Cassidy &

P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 44–67). New

York: Guilford.

Mietzner, S., & Lin, L.-W. (2005). Would you do it again? Relationship skills gained in a long-distance relation-

ship. College Student Journal, 39, 192–200.

Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2002). Attachment security in couple relationships:

A systemic model and its implications for family dynamics. Family Process, 41, 405–434.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psycho-

dynamics, and interpersonal processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology

(Vol. 35, pp. 53–152). New York: Academic Press.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York:

Guilford.

Pistole, M. C., Roberts, A., & Mosko, J. E. (in press). Predictors of commitment in long distance and geographi-

cally close relationships. Journal of Counseling & Development.

Rabe, M. (2001). Commuter couples: An inside story. Society in Transition, 32, 277–291.

Rastogi, M. (2007). Coping with transitions in Asian Indian families: Systemic clinical interventions with immi-

grants. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 26(2), 55–67.

Rastogi, M., & Wampler, K. S. (1999). Adult daughters’ perceptions of the mother–daughter relationship: A

cross-cultural comparison. Family Relations, 48, 327–336.

Roberts, A., & Pistole, M. C. (2009). Long distance and proximal romantic relationships: Attachment and close-

ness. Journal of College Counseling, 12, 5–17.

Roberts, T. W. (1992). Sexual attraction and romantic love: Forgotten variables in marital therapy. Journal of

Marital and Family Therapy, 18, 357–364.

Rothbaum, F., Rosen, K., Ujiie, T., & Uchida, N. (2002). Family systems theory, attachment theory, and culture.

Family Process, 41, 328–350.

Sahlstein, E. M. (2004). Relating at a distance: Negotiating being together and being apart in long-distance rela-

tionships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 689–710.

Shanor, K. (1987). How to stay together when you have to be apart. New York: Warner Books.

Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). Attachment theory and research: Resurrection of the psychodynamic

approach to personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 22–45.

Stafford, L. (2005). Maintaining long-distance and cross residential relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Stafford, L., & Merolla, A. J. (2007). Idealization, reunions, and stability in long-distance dating relationships.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 37–54.

Stafford, L., Merolla, A. J., & Castle, J. D. (2006). When long-distance dating partners become geographically

close. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 901–919.

Starling, K. (2000, October). Long-distance love. Ebony, 55(12), 96–97, 102.

Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Sagi, A. (1999). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: Universal and contextual

dimensions. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical

applications (pp. 713–734). New York: Guilford.

Vormbrock, J. K. (1993). Attachment theory as applied to wartime and job-related marital separation. Psycholog-

ical Bulletin, 114, 122–144.

Weisser, C. (2006, January 1). Two cities, two careers, too much? Money. Retrieved January 29, 2008, from

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/2006/01/01/8365210/index.htm

Westefeld, J. S., & Liddell, D. (1982). Coping with long-distance relationships. Journal of College Student Person-

nel, 23, 550–551.

Woolley, S. R., & Johnson, S. M. (2005). Creating secure connections: Emotionally focused couples therapy. In

J. L. Lebow (Ed.), Handbook of clinical family therapy (pp. 384–405). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Wynne, L. (1984). The epigenesis of relational systems: A model for understanding family development. Family

Process, 23, 297–318.


Documents

Long-Distance Romantic Couples: An Attachment Theoretical Perspective