A relational uncertainty analysis of jealousy, trust, and maintenance in long‐distance versus geographically close relationships

167 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

A meta-analytic review of relationship maintenance and its correlates (2013, background): “Additionally, most relationship maintenance scholars cite both the 1991 and 1992 measures and do not distinguish between the two (e.g., Canary, Stafford, & Semic, 2002; Dainton & Aylor, 2001).”
Relational Maintenance during Military Deployment: Perspectives of Wives of Deployed US Soldiers (2010, methodology): “For example, because long-distance partners are often limited in their ability to engage in maintenance behaviors that require physical co-presence (e.g., shared tasks; Dainton & Aylor, 2001), the partners may adjust their expectations for need fulfillment.”
Motivating factors: perceptions of justice and their relationship with managerial and organizational trust (2005, unknown): “Scholars have examined trust in the instructional (Brunson & Vogt, 1996), family (Martin, Anderson, Burant, & Weber, 1997), interpersonal (Dainton & Aylor, 2001; Ijams & Miller, 2000), and health (Crowell & Emmers-Sommer, 2001) communication contexts.”
Relational Maintenance in Cross‐Sex Friendships Characterized by Different Types of Romantic Intent: An Exploratory Study (2005, background): “In a study that included both long-distance and proximal dating relationships, Dainton and Aylor (2001) found that relational uncertainty associated negatively with the maintenance strategies of openness, assurances, positivity, task sharing, and social networking.”