Love across the miles: Communication and support in long-distance relationships

In the 1960s, my grandparents were in a long-distance relationship because my grandad moved from the UK to India – nearly 5,000 miles away. For two years, they wrote each other letters to stay in touch. Contrastingly, I was in a long-distance relationship during the pandemic because we lived 200 miles apart and it was illegal to visit each other. 

We video called every day and texted almost constantly. I often wonder how my grandparents coped, since 200 miles with regular communication seemed so difficult at the time. Technology has definitely played a huge role in making long-distance relationships more accessible than ever, and so they are becoming more and more prevalent. Would you be able to sustain your relationship if you couldn't speak to one another or see each other for two years? Would you manage to communicate exclusively with handwritten letters?

While technology certainly provides a lot of opportunities for couples to be apart, it also provides many barriers and challenges that are not faced by geographically close couples. Face-to-face communication benefits from nonverbal cues, touch, and a shared sense of presence that are absent in long-distance relationships. Facial expressions, tone of voice, and body language are key components of communication, but are often entirely absent from computer-mediated communication. Because of this, individuals are more likely to seek support from their partner when they are in-person due to the availability of cues and touch to provide support and encouragement. However, for long-distance relationships, this is not always possible.

Communication in long-distance relationships

Long-distance couples do indeed have to rely on technology and computer-mediated communication, which is generally regarded as less beneficial than face-to-face communication – previous research has suggested communicating in-person is better for relational outcomes, happiness, and wellbeing. In fact, studies suggest that long-distance couples require regular face-to-face contact in order to maintain relationship satisfaction. Indeed, long-distance couples do often report higher levels of stress and lower levels of partner support than geographically close relationships. 

Partner support has been identified as the best predictor of relationship satisfaction in long-distance relationships (Freitas, 2004). To gain support from a partner, it may be necessary to take an active role in support seeking in order to elicit effective support. Therefore, it is important to gain an understanding of how long-distance couples do seek support from one another when they are not physically together.

It can be assumed that long-distance couples will depend on technology to seek support from partners, but the specific support-seeking behaviours are not yet known. Many studies have assessed support seeking in geographically-close relationships and identified behaviours such as asking for hugs, sulking, huffing and puffing, or using facial expressions. These behaviours obviously do not translate perfectly to computer-mediated communication, like texting, and so cannot always be utilised by long-distance couples.

 It is possible that communication channels like video calls allow for more of these nonverbal cues to be used. Indeed, the media richness theory would suggest that due to the varying availability of cues in different communication channels, different media are thus suited to different tasks and purposes. This has yet to be specifically evaluated within support seeking behaviours, but we may expect that communication channels with higher availability of cues (like video calls) are more beneficial in support-seeking behaviours than those with fewer cues (like texting). 

Although, support seeking can be divided into direct (specifically asking for help) and indirect (hinting and providing cues) behaviours. Individuals may seek emotional support (comfort and reassurance) or instrumental support (practical and tangible assistance). With this in mind, it is possible that different communication channels will be better suited to different types of support seeking. For example, asking your partner directly may require less nonverbal cues.

The role of attachment

To add more complications to this already under-researched area, support seeking is influenced by attachment. Romantic attachment is the emotional bond between partners and varies in both attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety.

Those high in avoidance favour self-reliance and independence, so seek support less frequently than other attachment styles. They would rather solve their problems alone than ask a partner for help. Those high in anxiety might seek excessive levels of support, particularly indirect support seeking or emotional support seeking. For instance, frequently asking their partner if they still love them.

 Alternatively, anxious individuals become hesitant to seek support if they doubt the availability and responsiveness of their partner. Those low in both avoidance and anxiety are categorised as secure and are generally happy to directly ask their partners for help when it is needed. 

While these support-seeking tendencies have been widely studied in geographically-close relationships, very little is known about how these behaviours may present in long-distance relationships. We may expect that those high in avoidance will prefer communication channels that allow for a delayed response and have lower availability of cues, like texting. 

Contrastingly, individuals high in attachment anxiety may prefer intrusive channels that require immediate attention and responses, like unplanned video calls. It is possible that compared to geographically close relationships, both avoidant and anxious individuals in long-distance relationships will need to be more direct in their support seeking due to the lack of cues, but alternatively they may seek less frequent support due to the lack of partner availability.

My research

My PhD is investigating how couples in long-distance relationships engage in support seeking and what specific support- seeking behaviours are utilised. I will assess the use of different communication channels based on attachment style and whether this impacts relational outcomes. I expect technology to play a huge role in sustaining these relationships and would predict that couples who communicate more regularly using these communication channels will have the best relational outcomes, especially if they also have frequent face-to-face communication. 

Distance makes the heart grow fonder, but only if you put in effort and have access to technology. Most of us aren't romantic (or patient) enough to communicate exclusively via handwritten letters like my grandparents did. 

Author biography 

Rhia Perks is a PhD student at the University of Southampton, within the Centre for Research on Self and Identity. She is funded by the South Coast Doctoral Training Partnership. Her research interests are romantic relationships, adult attachment, and narcissism. 

Twitter / X: @rhia_perks

Email: [email protected]