Running head: LONG-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS AND PERSONALITY
‘
Long-distance Relationships and Personality: How people´s locus of control reflects to satisfaction
in long-distance relationships in college age women in Finland?
Kaisa Koskinen
University of Jyväskylä
LONG-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS AND PERSONALIT
Abstract
This qualitative study examined if people´s locus of control has effect to their
satisfaction in long-distance relationships. Moreover, could coping skills be the mediator between
the state of locus of control and relationship satisfaction? The main hypotheses was that people with
strong internal locus of control reflects more satisfaction in long-distance relationships than people
with strong external locus of control and that the effective coping strategies would be the mediating
factor. The research included three Finnish college age women who were interviewed individually.
Overall, the purpose of this study was to indicate the role of personality traits in the long-distance
relationships. The results supported the hypothesis and person´s locus of control seems to have an
effect to the used coping strategies and relation satisfaction. Although it is impossible to draw direct
conclusions from the results this research but they can demonstrate one way to approach
relationships.
Keywords: Long-distance relationship, locus of control, coping, satisfaction
2
LONG-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS AND PERSONALIT
Long-distance Relationships and Personality: How people´s locus of control reflects to satisfaction
in long-distance relationships in college age women in Finland?
Long-distance dating relationships (LDDRs) have been studied a lot in North
America. Same as Cameron and Ross (2007) sited "Long-distance relationships are becoming
increasingly common" (p. 581). Similarly have Maguire and Kinney (2010) and Stafford (2010)
considered long-distance relationships to be prevalent. Researchers have presented different results
regarding LDDRs as problematic (Maguire & Kinney, 2010, p. 28), and stated that long-distance
relationships are not inherently stressful (Maguire, 2007; Maguire & Kinney, 2010).
Cultural perspective to face-to-face interaction
The physical separation is associated with lower relationship satisfaction (Cameron &
Ross, 2007; Maguire & Kinney, 2010). When sorting out stressors of LDDRs, Maguire and Kinney
(2010) noted the highly importance of frequent face-to-face (FtF) contact for the relationships
maintenance, to be the cultural belief in the United States. Similarly Stafford (2010) and Stafford
and Merolla (2007) brought out how requirement to have relational quality through face-to-face
communication is matter of Western relational ideal. According to Stafford and Merolla
(2007) infrequent face-to-face communication is associated with idealization which includes
idealistic distortion, romantic love, relational remiscence and perceived agreement. The article
pointed out that idealization and satisfaction with communication occur more in LDDRs than
geographically close dating relationships (GCDRs). Although, it was an interesting perception that
LDDRs are more stable than GCDRs as long as the geographically distance will continue. In other
words, infrequent face-to-face interaction and great idealization during separation negatively
predicted stability when partners in LDDRs transferred into GCDRs.
Coping with the lack of physical proximity
3
LONG-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS AND PERSONALIT
Idealization was Stafford and Merolla´s (2007) way to see how individuals can cope
with infrequent FtF interaction and its inflect to the relation stability. Maguire and Kinney (2010),
in turn, studied to which extent the perceived helpfulness of communication coping strategies is
associated with relational satisfaction in stressful and relatively stress-free LDDRs. According to
their study a major predictor of satisfaction among individuals in low distress LDDRs was the
perceived helpfulness of joint problem solving. On the other hand, a major predictor of satisfaction
among the participants in high distress LDDRs was the perceived helpfulness of openness. This
research pointed out that the most used communication coping strategies varies depending on how
individual appraises stressors and does individual reconsider stressor´s locus of causality as internal
or external. Anderson (1977) used Rotter´s (1966, p. 618) definition of causalities of control where
summarized, internal control refers to individuals who believe that reinforcements are dependent on
own behavior, capacities or attributes whereas external control refers individuals who perceive that
reinforcements are not under their control (p. 447). According to Anderson (1977) the internals
respond much less defensiveness and more task-oriented coping behavior than externals in a
particular situations, the second of which can reflect internals more successful problem solving in
stressful situations than in externals. Also Maguire and Kinney (2010) viewed various coping
strategies in their study which Bodenmann (2005) has divided to individual coping, dyadic coping,
relationship-focused coping and social support efforts. My research also focuses on a concept of
locus of control as one personality feature affecting through coping strategies to satisfaction in longdistance relationships.
Personality traits as an important factor in successful relation to district
Continuing with individual factors, Cameron and Ross (2008) argued that personality
characteristics have left out of research as inflecting factor to long-distance relationships´ stability.
Their study concentrated to resolve the extent which one particular trait called negative affectivity
4
LONG-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS AND PERSONALIT
(NA) and relational security influence to the breakups. Negative affectivity reflects for instance the
tendency to experience negative emotions and general stress-coping is less appropriate among
individuals with high NA. The study revealed that high NA in men was associated with breakup for
long-distance couples whereas in women it wasn´t related to relational stability in LDDR.
Considering the studied personality traits affecting to the relationships, NA seems to have the
strongest effect on relational stability. Their article also pointed out that the partners of high-NA
individuals receive reduced relationships satisfaction. Though, high NA alone doesn´t necessarily
cause the breakup; it is rather about which reactions high-NA individuals produce in threatening
situations. Altogether, it is important to study the interaction between personal characteristics and
situations in relationships for the reason that the relationship outcomes can be predict best with
examining the correlation between situational context and permanent vulnerability factors.
Uncertainty: one of the most studied concept in LDDRs
Instead of focusing personality traits, according to Sahlstein (2006) the recent LDDR
research has brought uncertainty, especially reducing uncertainty, to the focus. Quoting to Cameron
and Ross (2007) "Relational security appears to be a necessary requirement for progress in any
interaction" (p. 582). On the other hand, Maguire (2007) brought out that according to uncertainty
management theory (UMT) the evaluations of future possibilities should be considered before
deciding whether the uncertainty is problematic. The study discovered that uncertainty about
reunion in future reflects more distress, less satisfaction and also that rated communication coping
strategies are not so helpful than participants with sense of certainty. However, if evaluations about
the future were taken into account uncertainty wasn´t as problematic; even if living together in
future was uncertain but participants were satisfied with that, they received more relationship
satisfaction and relationship-enhancing communication coping strategies than participants with
lower satisfaction with their future prospects. Maguire´s study was one example on how satisfaction
5
LONG-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS AND PERSONALIT
in LDDRs isn´t unambiguous. Research must cover a number of perspectives, both relational and
personality factor and externals variables.
My research relationship with the sources
My study focuses on Finnish women college student´s personality and perceptions of
coping and satisfaction in LDDRs. I narrowed study to concern only women because of limited
resources. However, these results can be think of to some extend also connected to the male even if,
the gender differences must always been taken account, like Maguire and Kinney (2010) also
brought out how some studies show that women experience and they may cope psychological stress
differently than males. Likewise, have Cameron and Ross (2007) compared differences between
women and men´s personality associated with stability in LDDRs. Moreover, no study has been
done concerning the Finnish long-distance relationships.
Most of my sources were produced quantitatively with the exception of Sahlstein`s
(2006): "Making Plans: Praxis Strategies for Negotiating Uncertainty-Certainty in Long-Distance
Relationships". My research will review personality traits connecting to commonly used stress
coping skills and further impacting the perceived satisfaction in long-distance relationships in
quality. All of my resources were also conduct in United States or Canada which comprises a
relatively narrow perspective in term of culture. The research also will highlight the impact of
locus of control as a significant factor in the success of long-distance relationships. However, there
is a lack of recent research discussing the connection between locus of control and long-distance
relationships which highly interests me. Some research about locus of control and coping for
instance were available but they didn´t indicate how causality of control reflects to individuals
social relationships. My study can be an example of one way to investigate long-distance
relationships and thereby raise a new area of interest to researchers in this field.
6
LONG-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS AND PERSONALIT
Methods
My three participants were selected by asking volunteers in the class of psychology
students. The target group was Finnish women college students who had experience being in a longdistance relationship. All my participants were in a relationship at the moment. The study was
carried out on qualitative: researcher used an interview with open questions. Some questions`
purpose was to explore participant´s locus of control when the others measured one´s coping
strategies and relationship satisfaction. Answers were analyzed by picking up parts which reflect
more internal or external locus of control, used coping skills and relationships satisfaction or
dissatisfaction. Moreover, a pilot interview was implemented before the real interviews with
participants.
I carried out interview in Finnish for at I could get the right idea what participants
have meant and it would be also easier for them to communicate in their native language. The
interview was recorded and transcribed after which I translated relevant expressions from Finnish
into English. The participants were also informed about the study progress and how they are
anonymous in this research.
My main variables were locus of control, coping strategies and satisfaction. I
considered person´s locus of control more as internal or external. Coping strategies covered all
which participants brought out in their answers to maintain their relationships and cope with
relationship issues. Satisfaction were defined by participants´ answers in specific questions which
were supposed to measured that, as well as, my assessment about how satisfied they are when all
answers were taken account.
Results and Discussion
7
LONG-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS AND PERSONALIT
In this section the results has been organized according three main variables of the
research. This section includes also discussion part at the end of the paragraph where these findings
have been reflected to the earlier studies trying to find some connections and similarities between
participants.
Locus of control
Locus of control was main variable considering that I assumed it will be explanatory
factor in long-distance relationship satisfaction. My main hypotheses argue that strong inner locus
of control would reflect more relation satisfaction. Strong external locus of control, in turn, would
increase dissatisfaction in relationships.
Participant 1:

Problems in general in LDDR:s: sad (inner), time consuming; friends and boyfriend (external)

Satisfaction depend probably more about individual than outside factors -> except if very long
distance , like other countries (inner)

Internal factors in own relationship= relationship depends very much about yourself or partner

Externals factors in own relationship= distance itself can be problem, not big; just have to accept it

Individual factors probably play bigger role considering relation satisfaction than outsides factors
Participant 2:

desire to be together was mentioned three times playing an important role maintaining satisfaction in
long-distance relationships, which stresses participants inner locus of control

condition factors are mentioned significant in long-distance relationships but issues are largely
depend how person take an attitude to problems; condition factors are recognized but she highlights
person´s will or desire, which reflects more Inner locus of control

Mentioned general problems in LDDR:s: jealousy, different life style, or different expectations in
the relationship when other doesn´t want so serious relationship and the others wants more; I
considered this to reflect more inner locus of control
Participant 3:

General problems in long-distance relationships: if too long distance (for example seeing once a
month) and economic costs (both characterizes more external locus of control)
8
LONG-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS AND PERSONALIT

Participant say that maybe condition factors plays the bigger role if very long distance (could also
refer to the external locus of control)

Own attitude is significant factor to relation satisfaction; self-pity doesn´t work in long-distance
relationships, it is rather efforts and attitude that matters (Internal locus of control)

Satisfaction depend more individual or environment?
 each of one isn´t more important
 long-distance relationship isn´t for everyone -> participant herself has used to that
 maybe the external factors are more important

Internal factors in own relationship: attitude has a big role; own attitude and efforts significant and
that partner is the right for oneself

External factors in own relationship: partner´s work, reflect to the satisfaction
 more satisfied if partner would move into the same city
All three participants seem to have signs of internal locus of control. Especially
participants one and two can have very strong internal locus of control considering their amount of
comments supporting this. Participant number three, in turn, had more indications of externals locus
of control than other. For example, when asking general problems participant3 highlighted
condition factors like distance itself and financial costs. Still, considering the whole data and
interaction in interview I would regard all three have more internal locus of control than external.
Coping strategies
Coping strategies were an important variable in the research because I assumed them
to be mediator between locus of control and relationship satisfaction. More specific my hypotheses
is that people with strong internal locus of control will use more effective and constructive coping
strategies considering relation issues than people with strong external locus of control. Constructive
coping strategies would decrease conflicts problems effectively leading to the relation satisfaction.
Participant 1:

Not many problem in own relationship, sometimes how combine friends and boyfriend time

Coping strategies in general in LDDR:s: better to see as much as possible, talk with partner,
communication in general, flexibility on both sides
9
LONG-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS AND PERSONALIT

Coping in own relationship: talk together, communication works fine, can speak all issues that come
up, take into account others plans and activities
Participant 2:

in general: open communication,

Coping in own relationship: mostly talking with partner as much as possible; in this way can share
emotions and get comfort
Participant 3:

In general: talking with partner, together solve problems, compromises because doesn´t see friends
as much as would like to (externals)

Own relationship problems: when being all weekend with partner, doesn´t see friends so much and
can´t live everyday life together

In own relationship: talking with partner and coping both independently and together think how to
resolve things and call if sad, comfort from the other
Participants were asked about problems that long-distance relationship can cause in
general and in their own relationship and which coping strategies they found to be effective and
which they use in their relationships. Everyone brought out talking with partner to be the main
strategy which will provide support from the partner and which helps to share emotions. Moreover,
all had in common view that partners should be connected as much as possible. When asking do
participants cope more with their partners or more alone, participants one and two told only about
coping with partner but participants number three indicated also some individual coping strategies.
Could this be connected to the results about the participant´s possibly lower inner locus of control
than the other participants? These results could evidence that person´s locus of control has an effect
to the used coping skills at least in long-distance relationships. Perhaps this could be extended to
also the other intimate or social relationships. When it comes to participants´ views about coping
strategies in general they all raised open communication to be highly important. Participants one
and three mentioned also meaning of both sides flexibility in this context.
Satisfaction
10
LONG-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS AND PERSONALIT
Relation satisfaction is quite often used indicator when studying long-distance
relationships. I chose it because I find that it represents the best position of the relationship and it is
easy to compare to the other studies.
Participant 1:

Maintain satisfaction in general: Can control yearning/sadness, work out some activities, own life
doesn´t depend totally on the other, both side trust
 Participant receives these in her own relationship (satisfied)

In general satisfaction appears as a commitment to the relationship and if the person can show that to
the partner. Also a positive feeling about the relationships

In own relationship: satisfaction appear; time spend together is so valuable that participant doesn´t
want to complain and again positive attitude

Participant receives that she get out of the relationship as much as she makes an effort for it

If the relationship would change to close relationship the satisfaction didn´t chance because it is at a
stable level ->organizing time would be easier and the relationship itself could get new levels

Participant sees moving together natural progress in future
Participant 2:

receive the signs of satisfaction mentioned by participant
 both partners want the same things in relationship, see the future at the same way, make
equally an effort to maintain the relationship
 yearning other when doesn´t see, would like to see, enjoy oneself when seeing
 participant could receive these sings of satisfaction in her own relationship

also satisfied even if partner isn´t present (mentioned two times)
 time for herself -> also keep up general relation satisfaction if can go free when away from
partner
 one part of satisfaction/happiness that it is enough that the person is there somewhere for
you, need to be able to enjoy the relationships even other isn´t whole time present

if moved together or in the same place believed that satisfaction would stay stable, even if the
relationship would change

quite a stable thought that will move together with partner after studies
Participant 3:

What maintain satisfaction in general: keep on touch and see as much as possible, communication,
plan everything nice to do together, still sharing lives the most important thing
11
LONG-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS AND PERSONALIT

In own relationship: do very normal things -> if more special activities it could be more easier

How satisfaction appears in general: stable peace and trust that appears in human´s spirit and you
can see it when couple is together -> communication is harmonic and they want to be together

Former in own relationship:
 people can see how happy we are when we are together
 stable trust, basic trust can be caused by knowing the other so well

Most of the time experience that get as much as put an effort to the relationship, sometimes feels that
not so equal because participant travels and have financial disadvantages more
 condition factor that is uncontrollable and that´s way participant receive that get as much as
put an efforts

If the long-distance relationships would chance to close relationship, relation satisfaction would
increase -> nice to be close and do everyday things, no more all time travelling and arrangements

very probable that move together after a year, sees future together very positive way
Data was fairly congruent with case of satisfaction. All participants received
satisfaction in their relationships. They were easily able to imagine moving together with their
partners in future. Everyone was also satisfied with number of contacts.
There was an interesting point when resolving would satisfaction change and how it
would change if the relationship was transform to GRDS instead of LDDR. Participants one and
two experienced that relation satisfaction itself would remain the same even if the relationship
would change in other respects. However, participant 3 brought out that relation satisfaction would
increase in this kind of situation. It could be interpret that other participants have more stable
satisfaction with their relationships but this kind of conclusion doesn´t get enough justification
because overall, all participants received in large measure relation satisfaction. Different answers
between participants may be due to different interpretation of questions. Still, there were some
connections between strong internal locus of control and used coping strategies and relation
satisfaction. Two of the participants indicated strong internal locus of control, highlighted coping
with partner and that satisfaction would stay same even if the relationship would change form to the
opposite of LDDR. One participant didn´t indicate as strong internal locus of control than the
12
LONG-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS AND PERSONALIT
others, her coping strategies differed the most and her relation satisfaction depend to some extent on
the distance between she and the partner.
Connections to earlier research
It is difficult to compare the results directly to the other studies because those are
conduct from different perspectives. However, all my participants brought out not only some
disadvantages related to long-distance relationships but also positive sides. At this point, we can
agree with Maguire (2007) and Maguire and Kinney ( 2010) that long-distance relationships are
not naturally stressful.
In Maguire and Kinney´s (2010) research perceived helpfulness of joint problem
solving was the major predictor of satisfaction among individuals in low distress LDDRs. In
turn, the major predictor of satisfaction among the participants in high distress LDDRs was
perceived helpfulness of openness. Same research also pointed out that person´s locus of control
reflects to the most used communication coping strategies. However, my research didn´t
measure levels of distress. Still, it is intriguing that participants with strong internal locus of
control indicated more joint problem solving that is important predictor of relational
satisfaction. All participants felt that open communication is one of the main coping strategies
which are also related to satisfaction in long-distance relationships.
I have some themes in my literature view that I didn´t process in this study. For
example personality trait negative affectivity was neglected. On the other hand, even if
uncertainty didn´t play a major role in this study there was some questions in the interview
related to future expectations and at the same time to the uncertainty. Maguire (2007) revealed
that uncertainty about reunion in future reflects more distress, less satisfaction and less effective
communication coping strategies compared to participants with sense of certainty. All my
13
LONG-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS AND PERSONALIT
participants received high relation satisfaction and had relatively stable thought that the
relationship will continue and transfer to cohabitation in future.
Conclusion and Limits
The results demonstrated that internal locus of control could be factor that increases
relation satisfaction and the coping strategies could be the mediator between this interaction. Each
of the participants indicated high relation satisfaction as well as signs of the internal locus of
control.
About limits of the research, it should be taken into account that these participants had
roughly three hours travel to their partners and results could differ if the distance would be longer.
Moreover, the amount of participants could be bigger to reveal the hypothesis. Interview as a
method enable to notice participants´ non-verbal communicating effectively and that´s how it gives
thorough perspective what participant have meant. Although, there is a risk that this method limits
how openly participants give their answers especially concerning personal issues. Some other
method like inquiry could be better to let participants to think their answer thoroughly before
answering. Moreover, perhaps in future the target group could concern both genders and broader
culture perspective because the results could be totally different among other group. All in all, this
research can give some future perspectives to explore long-distance relationships or in the other
hand, person´s locus of control and its effect to social relations.
14
LONG-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS AND PERSONALIT
References
Anderson C. R. (1977). Locus of control, coping behaviors, and performance in a stress setting: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4), 446-451.
Cameron J. J. (2007). In Times of Uncertainty: Predicting the survival of long-distance
relationships. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147(6), 581-606.
Maguire K. C. (2007). "Will It Ever End?": A (re)examination of uncertainty in college student
long-distance dating relationships. Communication Quarterly, 55(4), 415-432.
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 Research, 38(1), 27-46).
Sahlstein E. M. (2006). Making Plans: Praxis strategies for negotiating uncertainty-certainty in
long-distance relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 70(2), 147-165.
Stafford L. (2010). Geographic distance and communication during courtship. Communication
Research, 37(2), 275-297).
Stafford L. & Merolla A. J. (2007). Idealization, reunions, and stability in long-distance dating
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 37-54.
15