Assignment: Absence makes the heart grow fonder vs Out of sight out of mind

Assignment: Absence makes the heart grow fonder vs Out of sight out of mind

Assignment: Absence makes the heart grow fonder vs Out of sight out of mind

SAMPLE DISCUSSION

These two folk theories both have different but opposite meanings to what the other parent talks about. For instance, the folk theory which talks about the heart growing fonder when your loved ones are absent has a distinct meaning. This folk theory explains that when your loved ones are not present, you tend to like even them more especially when you start missing them.

(write about how the article I gave you search about the folk theory. State hypothesis and experiment. Etc. follow the requirement sheet.)

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcqu20

Download by: [University of California, Santa Cruz] Date: 26 May 2016, At: 12:07

Communication Quarterly

ISSN: 0146-3373 (Print) 1746-4102 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcqu20

Examining the maintenance of friendships: Are there differences between geographically close and long?distance friends?

Amy Janan Johnson

To cite this article: Amy Janan Johnson (2001) Examining the maintenance of friendships: Are there differences between geographically close and long?distance friends?, Communication Quarterly, 49:4, 424-435, DOI: 10.1080/01463370109385639

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463370109385639

Published online: 21 May 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 741

View related articles

Citing articles: 11 View citing articles

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcqu20
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcqu20
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01463370109385639
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463370109385639
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rcqu20&page=instructions
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rcqu20&page=instructions
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/01463370109385639
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/01463370109385639
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/01463370109385639#tabModule
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/01463370109385639#tabModule
Examining the Maintenance of Friendships: Are There Differences Between Geographically Close and Long-Distance Friends?

Amy Janan Johnson

This study seeks to examine a relationship ignored by most communication re- searchers: the long-distance friendship. In this study, geographically close friends reported more maintenance behaviors than long-distance friends. However, no sig- nificant differences were found concerning how satisfied or close they perceive their friendship to be or whether they expected their friendship to continue. Differences in the maintenance behaviors reported for each type of friend suggest that some maintenance behaviors may be more important than others for maintaining a close, satisfactory friendship. Implications for current conceptualizations of relational maintenance are discussed.

KEY CONCEPTS friendship, maintenance, long-distance relationships, relational closeness

Amy Janan Johnson (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1999) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Okla- homa, Norman, OK 73019. The author would like to thank Larry Massey, Jessica Williams, and Megan Henry for their help in coding the data for this project and to Jennifer Butler-Ellis for allowing her class to be utilized for data collection. A previous version of this paper was presented to the Inter- personal Division of the National Communication Association at their an- nual conference in Chicago, 1999.

With the greater number of communication channels available to individu-als every day, the impact of geographic distance is growing smaller, allowing us to form and maintain relationships with individuals who live too far away for us to interact face-to-face with them frequently (Blieszner & Adams, 1992; Wood, 1995). However, little is known about how individuals maintain such rela- tionships over distance (Rohlfing, 1995) even though these relationships are com- mon: Rohlfing found that 90% of individuals she surveyed reported having at least one close long-distance friend. Long-distance friendships have been ignored by com- munication researchers, but they should be examined because of their implications for traditional views of relational maintenance (Guldner & Swensen, 1995; Rohlfing.

Assignment: Absence makes the heart grow fonder vs Out of sight out of mind

Communication Quarterly, Vol. 49 No 4 Fall 2001, Pages 424-435

1995). Previous research has focused on the quantity of maintenance behaviors and has suggested that more maintenance behaviors lead to better relationships. For ex- ample, Canary and Stafford (1994) claim that “relational properties erode without the benefit of maintenance behaviors” (p. 5). Such a view of maintenance disadvan- tages the long-distance relationship. How do individuals seek to maintain relation- ships differently when the relationships are long-distance versus geographically close? What do such possible differences illustrate about the current methods of conceptu- alizing relational maintenance?

By definition, an increase in distance decreases the opportunity for face-to-face contact between individuals. Davis (1973) claims that face-to-face contact is the easi- est method for exchanging rewards in a relationship. An increase in distance between friends should constrain the frequency and type of maintenance behaviors that friends can utilize. Costs are increased (such as long-distance bills and expenses for visits, Rohlfing, 1995) and certain rewards become more difficult to exchange. Some re- searchers have even cast doubt concerning whether relationships can survive an in- crease in distance (Allan, 1979; Davis, 1973). For example, Berscheid, Snyder, and Omoto (1989) claim that “people who do not see each other frequently—for what- ever reason, even involuntary ‘good’ reasons—simply cannot be as close, other things being equal, as people who do spend a lot of time together” (p. 794).

Therefore, current conceptualization of relational maintenance and closeness would suggest that long-distance friendships should be characterized by fewer main- tenance activities which should lead to these relationships being less close and satis- fying. However, previous research on long-distance romantic relationships does not support this view. Guldner and Swensen (1995) found few differences between ro- mantic couples who are geographically close (GC) and those who are long-distance (LD). They found no significant difference in relational satisfaction. They claim that this finding illustrates that frequency of visits (face-to-face contact) is not essential for relational maintenance.

How long-distance friends differ from their geographically close counterparts and cope with the factor of increased distance is unclear. They differ from long-distance romantic partners on many factors, such as the importance of the possibility of a decrease in distance (Rohlfing, 1995) and exclusivity of the relationship. Some previ- ous research appears to predict that long-distance friendships should be less close and satisfactory (Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto, 1989), while research concerning long- distance romantic relationships portrays no significant difference in satisfaction. This study seeks to explore this disparity by examining how long-distance friendships maintain their relationships when they no longer can depend on face-to-face contact. The next section will discuss previous research related to the maintenance of friend- ships.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH CONCERNING FRIENDSHIP MAINTENANCE Previous relational maintenance research has focused on how maintenance differs by type of relationship but has not taken distance into account. Results from one study by Canary, Stafford, Hause, and Wallace (1993) support the contention that different relationships call for varied maintenance actions. More use of maintenance behaviors was reported for family and romantic partners than friends, and they claimed that “people are probably less concerned about maintaining their friend- ships than their romantic and family relationships” (p. 12).

…