Going from a long distance relationship to one that's geographically close can be a really rough ride, and for a lot of couples -- particularly college students -- it often results in the end of the relationship. The relationships end for multiple reasons, but can be attributed to the Relational Dialectics Theory crafted by Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery, in 1988.
Relational dialectics are, essentially, the tensions and contradictions in personal relationships. Some of the typical tensions that are often experienced by couples in long distance relationships are connection-autonomy and certainty-uncertainty. These tensions can cause a lot of distress when a long distance relationship is transitioning to a geographically close one. A study done by Ohio State University shows that the loss of desirable features of long distance relationships often resulted in the couples breaking up, specifically because of factors related to these two tensions.
Having been in a long distance relationship for two years myself, I can attest to the common tensions that were noted by the participants in the study, such as time and scheduling difficulties. When I came home to go to the U of M, my boyfriend's schedule didn't match up very well with mine, and that made it really hard to spend time together. This tension provided us with a great opportunity to create a dialogue, but I regret to say that we missed the boat on that one. Missing this opportunity to talk things out slowly created a strain later on in our relationship. Our differences stemmed from me being interested in us connecting now that I was home, while he was swamped with school work and required a lot of autonomy in order to get things done. Missing that first opportunity for communication and there being no way to bring it up without making things uncomfortable left me feeling like I was always second to everything else in his life at the time.
This feeling only grew, and it soon became another tension: relational de-escalation. Not being able to find enough time to see, talk, and hang out with each other led me to compare how my boyfriend was acting currently to how he had acted during the time when we were long distance. To me, all these changes in our relationship made me feel like we were only becoming more distant from each other even though we were so geographically close. The continuous lack of good communication that was supposed to have happened when these tensions first appeared caused the small things to become big things.
For a while, I seriously considered ending the relationship. After talking through how we each felt about our situation and what we could do to change it, we decided to stay together. The thorough discussion we had back then has helped to provide us with new standards for how we communicate together, and we are happier than we've ever been because of it. However, for many couples in similar situations, the positive end result that happened between my boyfriend and I isn't always the outcome.
As I stated earlier, there are a lot of variables that play into the reason behind a break up, but through the eyes of a communication theory scholar, what it really narrows down to is communication. Shocker, I know, but communication isn't just sitting down and having a heart-to-heart every other week with each other. Communication is about a continuous flow of dialogue between the couple, and it's the relational tensions that the couple faces that create an opportunity for that dialogue.
So if you are currently in a long distance relationship and you're planning to become a geographically close relationship, I would definitely keep your eyes peeled for these tensions as they come up so that you don't miss the chance for communication that comes as a result. Take it from someone who's been in that place: it's better to talk it out during the small things, because they will come back when you need to talk about the big things.
