The Impact of Relationship Transitionson on Emotional Functioning

Weber, D. M., Baucom, D. H., Wojda-Burlij, A. K., Carrino, E. A., Du Bois, S., & Sher, T. G. (2024). Relationship “jet lag” in long-distance and geographically close relationships: The impact of relationship transitions on emotional functioning. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 13(3), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000224

Rationale

Individuals in romantic relationships must navigate transitions between operating as a couple and as individuals.

These transitions can be challenging and may impact emotional functioning.

Previous research has focused on broad relationship characteristics or retrospective reports of transitions, but little is known about how couples experience these transitions in real-time (Diamond et al., 2008; Sahlstein, 2004).

Additionally, while research has examined differences between long-distance relationships (LDRs) and geographically close relationships (GCRs), the experience of transitions has not been explored as a key distinction between these relationship types (Dargie et al., 2015; Du Bois et al., 2016).

This study aims to fill these gaps by investigating factors that influence partners’ abilities to transition effectively between phases and how these abilities relate to emotional functioning.

The concept of “set shifting,” typically studied in individual cognitive processes, is applied to relationship transitions as “relational set shifting.”

This novel approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of how partners adapt to different relationship phases and the impact on their emotional well-being.

Method

The study employed a longitudinal design, following couples through periods of reunion and separation. Participants completed surveys at multiple time points to capture their experiences during transitions.

Sample

The final sample included 59 couples (30 GCRs and 29 LDRs).

Participants were predominantly White, mixed-gender couples living in the United States. The mean age was 32.62 years for GCRs and 28.34 years for LDRs.

Procedure

Couples completed baseline questionnaires assessing relationship characteristics, relational set shifting abilities, preferred functional state, and relationship satisfaction.

They then provided details about an upcoming reunion.

Within 24 hours of reuniting (4 hours for GCRs), partners separately completed surveys assessing their state affect. After separation, partners completed another survey assessing state affect within 24 hours.

Measures

• Relational Set Shifting: A newly developed self-report measure assessing difficulties transitioning into reunion and separation phases.
• Preferred Functional State: A single-item measure assessing preference for functioning as an individual or as part of a couple.
• Relationship Satisfaction: The 8-item Couples Satisfaction Index (Funk & Rogge, 2007).
• State Affect: The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988).

Statistical measures

Multilevel modeling (MLM) was used to account for the non-independence of dyadic data.

Within- and between-couple effects were examined using centering procedures. Mediation analyses were conducted using the Monte Carlo method.

Results

Here is a summary of the key results from the study:

Relationship proximity (LDR vs. GCR):

• LDRs reported significantly greater difficulties set shifting into separation compared to GCRs.
• Contrary to expectations, there was no significant difference between LDRs and GCRs in difficulties set shifting into reunion.

Preferred functional state:

• A more couple-oriented preferred state was associated with fewer difficulties set shifting into reunion at both the between-couple and within-couple levels.
• A more couple-oriented preferred state was associated with greater difficulties set shifting into separation at the between-couple level.

Relationship satisfaction:

• Higher relationship satisfaction was associated with fewer difficulties set shifting into reunion at both the between-couple and within-couple levels.
• Relationship satisfaction was not significantly related to difficulties set shifting into separation.

Relational set shifting and emotional functioning:

• Greater difficulties in relational set shifting were associated with higher negative affect during both reunion and separation phases, but only at the between-couple level.
• Set shifting difficulties were not significantly related to positive affect.

Indirect effects:

• Significant indirect effects were found linking preferred functional state and relationship satisfaction to negative affect through set shifting difficulties.
• LDR status was indirectly associated with higher negative affect during separation through greater set shifting difficulties.

Insight

This study provides novel insights into the dynamics of relationship transitions, particularly for LDRs and GCRs.

The finding that LDRs experience greater difficulties transitioning into separation, but not reunion, challenges assumptions about LDR functioning.

It suggests that the less frequent transitions experienced by LDRs may make separation more challenging, while the anticipation of reunion may counteract potential difficulties.

The influence of preferred functional state on transition experiences highlights the importance of individual differences in relationship functioning.

Those who prefer operating as part of a couple may find separation more challenging, while those who prefer individual functioning may struggle more with reunion.

The association between relationship satisfaction and ease of transitioning into reunion, but not separation, suggests that satisfaction may prime partners for positive interactions during time together. However, the lack of association with separation transitions warrants further investigation.

The study’s use of real-time assessments during transitions provides a more nuanced understanding of relationship processes compared to retrospective reports. Future research could explore the duration of transition periods, the role of communication during separations, and the impact of transition experiences on long-term relationship outcomes.

Implications

Clinically, these findings suggest the importance of tailoring interventions for couples based on their relationship type (LDR vs. GCR) and individual preferences for functioning.

Therapists may help partners develop strategies for smoother transitions, particularly during separations for LDRs.

The concept of relational set shifting provides a new framework for understanding relationship dynamics. Educating couples about this process may help normalize transition difficulties and encourage the development of coping strategies.

For future research, longitudinal studies examining how transition experiences change over time and their impact on relationship stability would be valuable.

Additionally, investigating cultural differences in transition experiences and the role of technology in facilitating transitions for LDRs could provide important insights.

Strengths

• Real-time assessment of transitions, providing ecologically valid data
• Inclusion of both LDRs and GCRs for comparison
• Examination of both within- and between-couple effects
• Investigation of multiple factors influencing transition experiences (relationship type, satisfaction, preferred state)
• Use of dyadic data analysis to account for interdependence in couple data

Limitations

• Predominantly White, mixed-gender sample limits generalizability
• Novel measures for relational set shifting and preferred functional state require further validation
• Unclear optimal timing for transition assessments due to the novelty of the construct
• Focus on negative affect; limited findings related to positive affect
• Cross-sectional nature limits causal inferences

References

Primary reference

Weber, D. M., Baucom, D. H., Wojda-Burlij, A. K., Carrino, E. A., Du Bois, S., & Sher, T. G. (2024). Relationship “jet lag” in long-distance and geographically close relationships: The impact of relationship transitions on emotional functioning. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 13(3), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000224

Other references

Dargie, E., Blair, K. L., Goldfinger, C., & Pukall, C. F. (2015). Go long! Predictors of positive relationship outcomes in long-distance dating relationships. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 41(2), 181-202. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2013.864367

Diamond, L. M., Hicks, A. M., & Otter-Henderson, K. D. (2008). Every time you go away: Changes in affect, behavior, and physiology associated with travel-related separations from romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 385-403. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.385

Du Bois, S. N., Sher, T. G., Grotkowski, K., Aizenman, T., Slesinger, N., & Cohen, M. (2016). Going the distance: Health in long-distance versus proximal relationships. The Family Journal, 24(1), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480715616580

Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572-583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572

Sahlstein, E. M. (2004). Relating at a distance: Negotiating being together and being apart in long-distance relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(5), 689-710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407504046115

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

Keep Learning

Socratic questions for a college class to discuss this paper:

1. How might cultural differences influence the experience of relational set shifting in couples?
2. What role do you think technology plays in facilitating transitions for long-distance relationships? How might this impact the findings of this study?
3. How could the concept of relational set shifting be applied to other types of relationships, such as friendships or family relationships?
4. What additional factors might influence a person’s ability to transition between couple and individual phases?
5. How might the findings of this study inform the development of interventions for couples experiencing difficulties with transitions?
6. In what ways could the methodology of this study be improved to address its limitations?
7. How might the experience of relational set shifting change over the course of a long-term relationship?
8. What are the potential implications of this research for couples who are considering entering into a long-distance relationship?