Personal Relationships, 16 (2009), 631–646. Printed in the United States of America.Copyright © 2009 IARR. 1350-4126/09

Relational closeness: Comparing undergraduatecollege students’ geographically closeand long-distance friendships

AMY JANAN JOHNSON,a MICHEL M. HAIGH,b ELIZABETH A. CRAIG,c AND

JENNIFER A. H. BECKERd

aUniversity of Oklahoma; bThe Pennsylvania State University; cNorth Carolina StateUniversity; dUniversity of Wisconsin–Eau Claire

AbstractAs interpersonal relationships change with the advent of new technology, researchers need to reexamine theirtheoretical constructs (R. G. Adams, 1998). This study uses survey methodology to examine college undergraduatesfrom the United States. It explores the concept of relational closeness by comparing how geographically closeand long-distance friends define closeness in their relationships. It assesses prior methods of defining and measuringcloseness in interpersonal relationships for the impact of physical distance between the friends. Differences illustratefactors that are important in understanding relational closeness in general and in long-distance relationships inparticular.

This study examines how college studentsdefine closeness in their long-distance (LD)and geographically close (GC) friendships.College students in particular are availingthemselves of new technologies allowingthem to communicate with their LD friendsmore easily (Pew Internet & American LifeProject, 2002). Changes in the ways individ-uals communicate with their friends lead to aneed to reexamine theoretical concepts related

Amy Janan Johnson, Department of Communication,University of Oklahoma; Michel M. Haigh, College ofCommunications, Pennsylvania State University; Eliza-beth A. Craig, Department of Communication, NorthCarolina State University; Jennifer A. H. Becker, Com-munication and Journalism Department, University ofWisconsin–Eau Claire.

A former version of Study 2 was presented to theInterpersonal Communication Division of the NationalCommunication Association for their annual meeting inBoston, November 2005. A former version of Study 1 waspresented to the Interpersonal Communication Division ofthe National Communication Association for their annualmeeting in San Diego, November 2008.

Correspondence should be addressed to Amy JananJohnson, Department of Communication, University ofOklahoma, Norman, OK 73019; e-mail: amyjj@ou.edu.

to friendship (Adams, 1998). An exampleof such a concept is relational closeness. Inmany interpersonal relationships, maintainingrelational closeness is essential to perceivingthe relationship as satisfactory. Hence, “whatis a close relationship?” becomes a funda-mental question for relational scholars. Whenconsidering this question, one must be carefulto distinguish between the physical proximitybetween two individuals and their subjectiveassessment of relational closeness.

Adams (1998) calls for the need to freerelational concepts “from grounding in face-to-face contexts so that they can be appliedequally as productively to non-proximate con-texts” (p. 176). One can distinguish betweenaspects of relational closeness relating tothe amount of geographic distance betweenthe individuals by comparing GC and LDfriendships. For example, some existing meth-ods of defining relational closeness assessthe amount of face-to-face interaction asindicative of closeness (e.g., Berscheid, Sny-der, & Omoto, 1989) even though previous

631

632 A. J. Johnson et al.

research finds no significant difference in self-reported relational closeness levels betweenproximal and distant romantic relationships(Guldner & Swensen, 1995) and friendships(Johnson, 2001). We will examine whethercurrent methods of defining and measuringrelational closeness tap into the dynamics ofLD relationships by comparing how individ-uals define closeness in both GC and LDfriendships.

The importance of LD friendships

One increasingly common interpersonal rela-tionship is the LD friendship. With greaternumbers of available communication chan-nels, the impact of geographic distance onfriendship is decreasing, allowing the forma-tion and maintenance of relationships withpeople too far away for frequent face-to-facecontact (Blieszner & Adams, 1992). Suchfriendships are common, with 89% of col-lege students reporting they have a close LDfriend (Johnson, 2001) and 82% of collegestudents reporting they e-mail an LD friend atleast once in a typical week (Johnson, Haigh,Becker, Craig, & Wigley, 2004).

Although this evidence suggests the LDfriendship is important to study in its ownright, research about LD relationships in gen-eral and LD friendships in particular is rare(Stafford, 2005). In the past, researchers haveviewed friendship as a voluntary, potentiallyfragile relationship (Wiseman, 1986). Someresearchers assume LD friendships are natu-rally less close than GC friendships (Stafford,2005). This assumption is the result of priv-ileging frequent face-to-face interaction asa necessary condition for close friendship.Nonetheless, the advent and popularity of newtechnologies has dramatically increased thepossibilities and expectations for sustainingclose connections despite geographic distance(Adams, 1998).

Previous research examining LD friend-ships has illustrated that these relationshipscan be close. Adams (1985–1986) foundolder women were emotionally closer to theirfriends who lived further from them. Addi-tionally, duration of the friendship was pos-itively correlated with emotional closeness

in these LD friendships, suggesting closeproximity should be less important afterthe individuals have established the relation-ship. Adams found the geographic distanceseparating friends kept them from provid-ing as much practical help. Therefore, eventhough emotional closeness was not sig-nificantly related to physical distance aftercontrolling for duration of the relationship(Adams, 1985–1986), physical distance stillcurtailed some of the activities in thesefriendships.

Today, changes in technology such as thedevelopment of the Internet (Adams, 1998)and cell phones are again changing the waysindividuals interact with their LD friends.Even though individuals can interact more fre-quently with these friends, this increase inaccessibility may not always lead to greaterrelational closeness. Adams (1998) observeshow technology may actually hasten the endof some LD friendships based mostly onpast experiences. Also, increases in abil-ity to contact LD friends may lead to thefriendship ending if the individuals do notavail themselves of these new technologies(Adams, 1998).

This study utilizes college students as apotentially important and convenient popu-lation of interest to examine how individu-als conceptualize relational closeness in theirGC and LD friendships. College represents atime when friendships can be a main focusof social life and when many may have theirfirst experience with LD friendships (Rawlins,1992). In addition, college students are oftenearly adopters of new communicating tech-nology and thus are a relevant populationfor examining maintenance through additionalchannels besides face-to-face interaction. Theresearchers from Pew Internet (2002) claimcurrent college students are more likely tomaintain contact with high school friendsbecause of new communication technologies,resulting in their having greater numbers ofsocial ties than their parents. Therefore, col-lege students are a useful population to utilizeto examine how physical distance is related tothe concept of relational closeness by compar-ing GC and LD friendships.

Long-distance closeness 633

Defining and measuring relational closeness

Stafford (2005) described the concept ofcloseness as “poorly conceived, seldom agreedon, and variously operationalized” (p. 12),and yet still this concept is “the core con-ceptualization of successful romantic, kin,and friend relationships in most relationalresearch” (p. 12). Previous research on rela-tional closeness has either presupposed orprivileged face-to-face contact (e.g., Berscheidet al., 1989) or has not distinguished betweenLD and GC relationships (e.g., Fehr, 2004;Monsour, 1992). Given the centrality of rela-tional closeness to the interpersonal and rela-tional literature, researchers can benefit fromexamining the LD relationship to understandwhich aspects of this construct relate to geo-graphic distance and which aspects transcendphysical distance between the two individuals.

When conceptualizing relational closeness,researchers base some current conceptualiza-tions on definitions laypersons provided (e.g.,Fehr, 2004; Monsour, 1992; Parks & Floyd,1996). For example, Monsour (1992) asked164 college students to report their defini-tion of friendship intimacy. The most commondefinitions included self-disclosure, emotionalexpressiveness, unconditional support, physi-cal contact, trust, sharing activities, and sex-ual contact. Parks and Floyd (1996) asked270 college students to define the conceptsof intimacy and closeness. The most commondefinitions included self-disclosure, help andsupport, shared interests and activities, andcomfort and ease of interaction. The mostfrequent distinction between closeness andintimacy pertained to sexual behavior, withintimacy associated with sexual involvement.Neither Monsour nor Parks and Floyd distin-guished between GC and LD relationships.

In her work on the prototype methodof defining friendship intimacy, Fehr (2004)drew upon the work of Rosch (1973), whoargued individuals categorize knowledgeabout concepts into prototypes. People dis-tinguish between instances that are clearly amember of a category (prototypical feature)and instances that are on the border ofthis concept (nonprototypical feature). For

example, rather than having an exact defini-tion of a chair, people distinguish betweena prototypical chair (such as a straight-backchair) and a nonprototypical chair (such asa love seat). Fehr suggested some patternsof relating are more prototypical to friend-ship intimacy than others are. Her participantsrated self-disclosure and emotional supportas more prototypical and practical supportand sharing activities as less prototypical.Fehr did not, however, distinguish betweenGC and LD friends. This study will utilizethe prototypical features Fehr delineated toexamine whether individuals have differentprototypes for friendship intimacy for GC andLD friends.

RQ1: Do LD and GC friends differ in howthey define closeness in the friendship,including the interaction patternsrated as prototypical of friendshipintimacy?

Parks and Floyd (1996) and Fehr (2004)found gender differences in their studies.Parks and Floyd found women were morelikely than men to report the following def-initions of closeness: self-disclosure, helpand support, relational expression (verbalor nonverbal expressions of closeness), andadvice. Fehr found women rated patterns ofinteraction related to self-disclosure as moreprototypical of friendship intimacy than mendid. As women can engage in the mainactivity in their friendships, self-disclosure(Dolgin, Meyer, & Schwartz, 1991), over dis-tance, while men cannot engage in one oftheir main friendship features, sharing activi-ties (Swain, 1989), over distance, we expectgender differences in how individuals definerelational closeness. We will examine whethergender differences arise in this study andwhether these differences interact with geo-graphic distance.

RQ2: Does gender or the interaction of gen-der with geographic distance relateto how individuals define friendshipcloseness?

Examining prior methods of measuringcloseness is also useful when considering how

634 A. J. Johnson et al.

geographic distance relates to the concept ofrelational closeness. Although Repinski andZook (2005) stated there is no agreed-uponway to measure closeness in relationships,some researchers have developed measuresof relational closeness more closely tied toface-to-face contact than others. An exampleof a measure tied to face-to-face contactis the Relational Closeness Inventory (RCI;Berscheid et al., 1989). Berscheid andcolleagues (1989) based the RCI on interde-pendence theory (Kelley et al., 1983), whichprivileges behavioral interdependence andthus casts proximal relationships as closer.The RCI measures and sums the componentsof frequent, strong, and diverse impact toestimate relational closeness. Several choicesin Berscheid and colleagues’ questionnaireconstruction predict lower scores for LDrelationships. For example, they defined fre-quency of impact in terms of face-to-facecontact only. Therefore, this scale does notprovide a very valid measure for examiningcloseness in LD friendships.

Another common measure of relationalcloseness, Aron and Aron’s (1986) Inclusionof Other in the Self (IOS) scale, theorizesthat a close relationship occurs when “theindividual acts as if some or all aspects ofthe partner are partially the individual’s own”(p. 598). Such an approach focuses on thequality of interactions rather than frequency(Aron & Fraley, 1999) and may thus be moreappropriate for LD relationships. The IOS tapsinto two factors (Aron, Aron, & Smollan,1992). The first factor, “feeling close,” relatesto the emotional and subjective feelings ofcloseness and includes “care, trust, lovingeach other, affection, enjoying each other’scompany, etc.” (p. 608). The second factor,“behaving close,” focuses on activities includ-ing “behavioral interaction, including spend-ing time together, doing activities together,sharing material resources, etc.” (p. 608). Thisinvestigation will examine whether the IOSsignificantly differs for GC and LD friend-ships. Prior research has shown a strong cor-relation between the IOS and self-reportedcloseness scores (e.g., Aron et al., 1992).Johnson (2001) created a scale with the inten-tion of divorcing the measure of closeness

from face-to-face frequency, and we will usethis scale to measure self-reported closeness.Examples of items from this scale include, “Iwould describe myself as close to this person”and “I do not consider that person a partic-ularly close friend” (reverse coded). There-fore, this study will examine whether the IOSscale is related to self-reported closeness andwhether this finding generalizes to both GCand LD friendships.

RQ3: Do the scores on the IOS scale differfor LD and GC friends?

RQ4: Does the IOS scale predict self-reported closeness levels for GC andLD friendships?

Study 1

Method

Participants and procedures

We recruited 137 participants from communi-cation classes at a large public university inthe Southwestern United States in exchangefor research participation credit. This univer-sity has nearly 19,000 undergraduates on itsmain campus. Fifty percent of the under-graduate students are women and 50% aremen. Twenty-one percent of the studentsat the university are minorities, including5.1% American Indian, 4.8% internationalstudents, 4.1% African American, 4.0% Asianor Pacific Islander, and 3.0% Hispanic orLatino. The average age of undergraduates atthe main campus is 21.1.

For the 137 participants in this study,there were slightly more men (51%) thanwomen (49%). The majority of participantswere Caucasian (78.3%), followed by AfricanAmerican (5.1%), Asian American (5.1%),Native American/Pacific Islander (5.1%), Other(4.3%), and Hispanic (2.2%). The mean agewas 20.35 (SD = 1.92).

We randomly assigned participants to com-plete a questionnaire about an LD or a GCsame-sex friend. We defined a GC friendshipas “a friendship with an individual who youcould see face-to-face everyday because theylive close enough to you.” We defined an LD

Long-distance closeness 635

friendship as “a friendship with an individ-ual who you cannot see face-to-face every-day because of how far they live from you.”We gave participants the option of asking forthe other questionnaire if they did not havethe type of friendship listed. No one selectedthis option. We asked respondents to providedemographic information about their friendand then asked the following question, repli-cating Parks and Floyd (1996): “What doesbeing ‘close’ in this friendship mean to you?”Individuals wrote free text narrative on a pro-vided blank sheet of paper.

Analyses

The first author trained the second author inthe use of the category scheme from Parksand Floyd (1996). To train, they together dis-cussed and coded examples from the datafor 10% of the data. Similar to Parks andFloyd, researchers could code one person’sresponse into multiple categories if partici-pants listed several definitions of closeness.The first and second authors then coded anadditional 20% of the data independently toestablish intercoder reliability. Categories forthis scheme are as follows (from Table 1 inParks & Floyd, 1996; p. 94): self-disclosure,“references to talking disclosing, ‘telling eachother everything,’ sharing, or the ability to dothese things”; help and support, “referencesto emotional support, instrumental support,‘helping each other out,’ ‘being there for eachother,’ or proving other helpful services”;shared interests, “references to common back-grounds, interests, tastes, value, beliefs oractivities”; relational expression, “referencesto the explicit verbal or non-verbal expres-sion of closeness or of the value of therelationships”; comfort and ease, “referencesto getting along well, having fun together,being comfortable around each other, inter-acting easily”; trust, “references to trusting orconfiding in each other, sharing or keepingsecrets”; acceptance, “references to beingmutually accepting, non-judgmental, no needto impress other”; frequent interaction, “refer-ences to closeness as a product of the amountor frequency of relational interaction”; globalaffect, “references to closeness as a general-ized affective state, such as warmth, caring,

liking, or loving”; understanding, “referencesto special insight, empathy, or understand-ing”; length of relationship, “references torelational duration”; advice and perspective,“references to giving good advice, sharingviewpoints, valuing each other’s opinion”;and respect, “references to mutual respector admiration” (pp. 94–95). Percent agree-ment for the number of closeness defini-tions provided was 78%, with a Cohen’sKappa (which measures intercoder reliabil-ity) of 0.69. Agreement for the category ofeach closeness definition was 71% with aCohen’s Kappa of 0.70. The two coauthorsdiscussed and resolved discrepancies. Thecoauthors considered these intercoder reliabil-ities acceptable, and they divided the rest ofthe data to code independently.

Results and discussion

Study 1 partially examined RQ1 and RQ2by investigating whether distance from one’sfriend and one’s gender related to reporteddefinitions for closeness. As Parks and Floyd(1996) found gender differences, we brokedown the current study’s results by gender(Table 1). For GC females, the most com-mon definitions were self-disclosure (reportedby 69.7% of the participants), frequencyof interaction (51.5%), help and support(48.5%), trust (30.3%), and comfort and ease(24.2%). For LD females, the most com-mon definitions reported were self-disclosure(62.9%), help and support (42.9%), trust(25.7%), understanding (22.9%), and adviceand perspective (20.0%). We conducted testsfor the significance of independent propor-tions to see which categories were sig-nificantly different between GC and LDfemales (Table 1). Females reporting on GCfriends listed the following definitions signif-icantly more: “comfort and ease” (z = 2.20,

p < .05) and “frequency of interaction” (z =3.54, p < .05). Females reporting on LDfriends reported “understanding” significantlymore than GC friends (z = −2.05, p < .05).

For males reporting on GC friends, themost commonly reported definitions of close-ness were self-disclosure (48.7%), frequencyof interaction (46.0%), help and support

636 A. J. Johnson et al.

Table 1. Results for the replication of Parks and Floyd (1996)

GC LD GC LDFemale Female Male Male

Definition (n = 33) (n = 35) z (n = 37) (n = 33) z

Self-disclosure 69.70 62.86 0.60 48.65 72.73 −2.13∗Help and support 48.48 42.86 0.47 40.54 33.33 0.71Shared interests 9.09 11.43 −0.32 16.22 12.12 0.49Relational expression 0.00 2.86 −1.02 0.00 0.00 0.00Comfort and ease 24.24 5.71 2.20∗ 21.62 24.24 −0.26Trust 30.30 25.71 0.42 5.41 21.21 −1.96∗Acceptance 18.18 5.71 1.60 2.70 0.00 1.01Frequent interaction 51.51 14.29 3.54∗∗ 45.95 30.30 1.37Global affect 3.03 5.71 −0.54 8.11 3.03 0.94Understanding 6.06 22.86 −2.04∗ 10.81 9.09 0.24Length of relationship 3.03 8.57 −0.99 5.41 3.03 0.50Advice and perspective 6.06 20.00 −1.76 2.70 3.03 −0.08Respect 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.70 3.03 −0.08Other 18.18 17.14 0.11 13.51 9.09 0.59

Note. Values are percentages of sample who reported for each definition.∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01.

(40.5%), comfort and ease (21.6%), andshared interests (16.2%). The most commonlyreported definitions for LD male friends wereself-disclosure (72.7%), help and support(33.3%), frequency of interaction (30.3%),comfort and ease (24.2%), and trust (21.2%).Even though “self-disclosure” was the mostcommonly reported definition for each typeof friend, a significantly higher proportion ofmales reporting on LD friends (72.7%) listedthis definition as compared to males reportingon GC friends (48.7%, z = −2.13, p < .05).LD male friends were also significantly morelikely to report “trust” as a definition of close-ness (z = −1.96, p = .05).

Summary of Study 1’s findings

By replicating Parks and Floyd’s (1996) pro-cedures and adding distance as a factor, Study1 shows differences in how GC and LDfriends define closeness. Study 2 will fur-ther explore how geographic proximity affectsrelational closeness by examining whetherLD and GC friends differ in what they per-ceive as prototypical of friendship intimacyand whether LD and GC friends differ ontwo methods of measuring closeness: the IOS

scale (Aron et al., 1992) and a self-reportmeasure of closeness (Johnson, 2001).

Study 2

Method

Participants and procedures

We recruited 603 participants from communi-cation classes at the same United States uni-versity as Study 1 in exchange for researchparticipation credit. Of these participants,46 failed to follow instructions or providedincomplete or inaccurate data. Therefore, weincluded the data from 557 participants in dataanalysis. There were 254 men (46%) and 301women (54%), and 1% did not report gender.The majority of participants were Caucasian(448, 80%), followed by African American(40, 7%), Asian American (20, 3.6%), NativeAmerican/Pacific Islander (20, 3.6%), His-panic/Latino (18, 3.2%), Other (7, 1.3%), andmissing (4, 0.7%). The mean age was 19.76(SD = 1.49).

We randomly assigned participants to com-plete a questionnaire about an LD or a GCfriend. We defined a GC friendship as “afriendship with an individual who you could

Long-distance closeness 637

see face-to-face everyday because they liveclose enough to you.” We defined an LDfriendship as “a friendship with an individ-ual who you cannot see face-to-face everydaybecause of how far they live from you.” If par-ticipants reported they did not have the typeof friendship listed, we gave them the otherquestionnaire. Two participants exercised thisoption. Of the 556 participants with completedata, 288 were in the GC condition and 269were in the LD condition.

In the questionnaire, following the proce-dures of Fehr (2004), participants rated certaininteraction patterns concerning how likelyeach produced a sense of intimacy in theirfriendship (see Table 2 for a list of these inter-action patterns). They reported demographicinformation, and then filled out two closenessscales: the IOS scale (Aron et al., 1992) and afour-item scale measuring self-reported rela-tional closeness (Johnson, 2001).

Measures and analyses

The first part of the questionnaire listed itemspotentially prototypical for friendship inti-macy from Fehr (2004; Table 2). Participantsrated these items on a 9-point scale from notat all likely (1) to extremely likely (9) to pro-duce a sense of closeness in their reportedfriendship. For the IOS scale (Aron et al.,1992), participants circled one of seven setsof circles. These circles differ in the degreeof overlap between them, with greater over-lap indicating a greater amount of closeness.Four items measured self-reported closeness(Johnson, 2001) on a 7-point scale. Itemsincluded: “This friendship is one of the closestI have ever had”; “I do not feel particularlyclose to this person” (reverse coded); “I woulddescribe myself as close to this person”; and“I do not consider this person a particu-larly close friend” (reverse coded). Means,standard deviations, and internal consistencymeasures (which we measured by Cronbach’salpha) for each of the scales are as fol-lows: IOS (M = 4.78, SD = 1.44, we couldnot calculate the reliability for this one-itemmeasure, possible range = 1–7), and self-reported closeness (M = 6.18, SD = 0.87,α = 0.82; possible range = 1–7).

Results and discussion

Study 2 examined RQs 1, 2, 3, and 4. In addi-tion to asking whether LD and GC friends dif-fer in how they define closeness, RQ1 askedwhether LD and GC friends differ on the inter-action patterns rated as prototypical of friend-ship intimacy. RQ2 asked whether gender ofthe participant or the interaction of genderof the participant and distance from friendrelated to these prototypicality ratings. Weran a two-way multivariate analysis of vari-ance (MANOVA) with distance from friend(GC or LD) and gender of the respondent(male or female) as the independent vari-ables and Fehr’s (2004) patterns of relatingas the dependent variables. To help controlfor type one error rates due to the numberof comparisons, we chose an alpha value of0.001. For the multivariate analysis, the twomain effects were significant (distance fromfriend: Wilks’s λ = 0.81, p < .001, 1 − λ =0.19; gender: Wilks’s λ = 0.60, p = .001,1 − λ = 0.40), but the interaction betweendistance and gender was not significant(Wilks’s λ = 0.90, p = .25, 1 − λ = 0.10).We list the univariate test results in Table 2,which shows the overall mean prototypicalityrating for each interaction pattern, the meanratings for GC and LD friends, and the meanratings for males and females. Also includedare p values for whether there are significantdifferences between GC and LD friends andbetween males and females.

There were five significant differencesbetween GC and LD friends, with GC friendsrating the following patterns of relating asmore prototypical: “If I am in trouble, myfriend will help me” (p < .001); “If I needmy friend, she or he will be there for me”(p < .001); “If I need to borrow something,my friend will lend it” (p < .001); “If I needa favor, my friend will do it” (p = .001); “IfI need practical help (e.g., moving, a ride,studying), my friend will provide it” (p <

.001). None of these significant differencesalso showed a significant gender difference,except “If I need my friend, she or he willbe there for me,” which women rated sig-nificantly higher. There were 33 significantdifferences between females and males, with

638 A. J. Johnson et al.T

able

2.P

roto

type

rati

ngs

for

GC

and

LD

frie

nds

Patte

rnof

rela

ting

(Feh

r,20

04)

Tota

lG

CL

Dp

valu

eM

ale

Fem

ale

pva

lue

IfI

have

apr

oble

m,

my

frie

ndw

illlis

ten.

8.28

18.

336

8.22

7.2

248.

027

8.53

5.0

00∗∗

∗If

I’m

joki

ngor

laug

hing

,m

yfr

iend

will

laug

hw

ithm

e.8.

227

8.28

58.

169

.203

8.01

08.

444

.000

∗∗∗

IfI

need

tota

lk,

my

frie

ndw

illlis

ten.

8.22

28.

272

8.17

3.3

118.

000

8.44

5.0

00∗∗

∗If

Iam

intr

oubl

e,m

yfr

iend

will

help

me.

8.17

08.

408

7.93

3.0

00∗∗

∗8.

101

8.24

0.1

82If

som

ethi

nggo

odha

ppen

sto

me,

my

frie

ndw

illbe

happ

yfo

rm

e.8.

121

8.12

38.

119

.968

7.93

28.

310

.000

∗∗∗

IfI

need

anop

inio

n,m

yfr

iend

will

prov

ide

it.8.

116

8.09

38.

140

.636

7.93

68.

296

.000

∗∗∗

IfI

need

my

frie

nd,

she

orhe

will

beth

ere

for

me.

8.09

98.

291

7.90

8.0

00∗∗

∗7.

862

8.33

7.0

00∗∗

∗If

Ine

edsu

ppor

t,m

yfr

iend

will

prov

ide

it.8.

087

8.09

98.

075

.793

7.85

18.

323

.000

∗∗∗

IfI

need

food

,cl

othi

ng,

ora

plac

eto

stay

,m

yfr

iend

will

prov

ide

it.8.

073

8.21

17.

936

.014

7.89

78.

250

.002

IfI

have

apr

oble

m,

my

frie

ndw

illhe

lpm

e.8.

032

8.14

27.

922

.026

7.86

48.

199

.001

∗∗∗

Ifso

met

hing

isim

port

ant

tom

e,m

yfr

iend

will

resp

ect

it.8.

029

7.99

98.

058

.852

7.63

88.

420

.014

IfI

need

chee

ring

up,

my

frie

ndw

illtr

yto

mak

em

ela

ugh.

8.00

18.

073

7.92

9.1

887.

712

8.29

0.0

00∗∗

∗If

Ine

edhe

lp,

my

frie

ndw

illpr

ovid

eit.

7.97

58.

114

7.83

6.0

067.

721

8.22

9.0

00∗∗

∗If

we

have

afig

htor

anar

gum

ent,

we

will

wor

kit

out.

7.97

58.

006

7.94

4.5

437.

815

8.13

5.0

02If

Ine

edto

borr

owso

met

hing

,m

yfr

iend

will

lend

it.7.

943

8.16

97.

718

.000

∗∗∗

7.85

58.

031

.152

IfI

need

advi

ce,

my

frie

ndw

illgi

veit.

7.90

27.

878

7.92

6.6

597.

632

8.17

2.0

00∗∗

∗If

Iw

ant

toha

vefu

n,m

yfr

iend

will

goou

tw

ithm

e.7.

872

7.97

97.

765

.100

7.75

77.

987

.076

IfI’

msa

dor

depr

esse

d,m

yfr

iend

will

chee

rm

eup

.7.

854

7.91

07.

798

.310

7.43

28.

276

.000

∗∗∗

IfI

need

afa

vor,

my

frie

ndw

illdo

it.7.

849

8.03

27.

666

.001

∗∗∗

7.77

47.

923

.173

IfI

need

time

alon

e,m

yfr

iend

will

unde

rsta

ndan

dgi

veit

tom

e.7.

848

7.88

67.

809

.490

7.67

88.

017

.002

IfI

doso

met

hing

wro

ng,

my

frie

ndw

illfo

rgiv

em

e.7.

836

7.83

27.

839

.942

7.70

57.

966

.009

IfI

amlo

nely

,m

yfr

iend

will

prov

ide

com

pani

onsh

ip.

7.83

47.

943

7.72

5.0

767.

620

8.04

8.0

01∗∗

∗E

ven

ifit

feel

sas

thou

ghno

one

care

s,I

know

my

frie

nddo

es.

7.80

57.

768

7.84

2.4

997.

455

8.15

5.0

00∗∗

∗If

Ise

ta

goal

,m

yfr

iend

will

supp

ort

and

enco

urag

em

e.7.

765

7.81

87.

711

.324

7.45

58.

074

.000

∗∗∗

IfI

need

prac

tical

help

(e.g

.,m

ovin

g,a

ride

,st

udyi

ng),

my

frie

ndw

illpr

ovid

eit.

7.75

68.

128

7.38

5.0

00∗∗

∗7.

784

7.72

9.6

77

Ifso

meo

new

asin

sulti

ngm

e,m

yfr

iend

wou

ldst

ick

upfo

rm

e.7.

754

7.86

87.

640

.067

7.59

97.

909

.013

Long-distance closeness 639

Tab

le2.

Con

tinu

ed

Patte

rnof

rela

ting

(Feh

r,20

04)

Tota

lG

CL

Dp

valu

eM

ale

Fem

ale

pva

lue

IfI

just

wan

tto

dono

thin

g,m

yfr

iend

will

befin

ew

ithth

at.

7.71

17.

743

7.67

8.6

167.

452

7.97

0.0

00∗∗

∗If

we

are

plan

ning

todo

som

ethi

ng,

we

take

each

pers

on’s

wis

hes

into

acco

unt.

7.70

87.

693

7.72

2.8

067.

318

8.09

8.0

00∗∗

∗

IfI

have

ase

cret

,I

can

trus

tm

yfr

iend

not

tote

llan

yone

else

.7.

702

7.76

87.

636

.301

7.54

27.

862

.012

IfI

amha

ppy,

my

frie

ndw

illbe

happ

yw

ithm

e.7.

700

7.74

57.

656

.449

7.30

38.

098

.000

∗∗∗

No

mat

ter

who

Iam

orw

hat

Ido

,m

yfr

iend

will

acce

ptm

e.7.

674

7.60

57.

744

.280

7.39

67.

952

.000

∗∗∗

IfI

ambo

red,

my

frie

ndw

illsp

end

time

with

me.

7.61

37.

708

7.51

7.1

497.

460

7.76

5.0

21If

Iam

upse

tor

wor

ried

,m

yfr

iend

will

com

fort

me.

7.60

27.

652

7.55

3.3

916.

982

8.22

2.0

00∗∗

∗If

Iam

feel

ing

trou

bled

,m

yfr

iend

can

sens

eit.

7.59

27.

663

7.52

1.2

707.

286

7.89

9.0

00∗∗

∗If

Iam

away

,m

yfr

iend

will

keep

into

uch.

7.57

17.

523

7.61

9.4

997.

330

7.81

2.0

01∗∗

∗If

I’m

feel

ing

inse

cure

,m

yfr

iend

will

boos

tm

yco

nfide

nce.

7.53

87.

566

7.51

0.6

556.

999

8.07

7.0

00∗∗

∗If

som

ethi

ngis

both

erin

gm

e,m

yfr

iend

will

unde

rsta

ndho

wI

feel

.7.

466

7.39

17.

540

.200

7.22

17.

710

.000

∗∗∗

Ifw

eha

vea

diff

eren

cein

opin

ion,

my

frie

ndw

illre

spec

tm

yvi

ews.

7.46

07.

457

7.46

3.9

607.

125

7.79

5.0

00∗∗

∗If

Iam

thin

king

ofso

met

hing

,sh

eor

heis

ofte

non

the

sam

ew

avel

engt

h.7.

453

7.50

27.

405

.479

7.20

07.

707

.000

∗∗∗

IfI

amm

akin

ga

mis

take

,m

yfr

iend

will

let

me

know

.7.

448

7.51

27.

383

.296

7.34

37.

552

.088

IfI

need

love

,m

yfr

iend

will

give

it.7.

440

7.38

77.

494

.457

6.59

48.

286

.000

∗∗∗

IfI

need

tocr

y,m

yfr

iend

will

beth

ere

for

me.

7.36

97.

450

7.28

8.2

936.

445

8.29

3.0

00∗∗

∗If

my

frie

ndha

sup

set

me,

Iam

able

tole

thi

mor

her

know

.7.

321

7.41

67.

227

.148

7.30

67.

337

.813

IfI

amaw

ay,

my

frie

ndw

illm

iss

me.

7.31

57.

304

7.32

7.8

726.

722

7.90

9.0

00∗∗

∗If

Ine

edm

oney

,m

yfr

iend

will

lend

itto

me.

7.19

57.

371

7.01

8.0

236.

924

7.46

5.0

01∗∗

∗If

Ine

eda

hug,

my

frie

ndw

illhu

gm

e.7.

151

7.29

87.

005

.094

6.30

87.

994

.000

∗∗∗

IfI

amsi

ck,

my

frie

ndw

illta

keca

reof

me.

6.85

77.

039

6.67

5.0

326.

269

7.44

5.0

00∗∗

∗If

Iam

sad,

my

frie

ndis

sad

too.

5.62

55.

603

5.64

7.8

114.

960

6.28

9.0

00∗∗

∗

Not

e.Fo

rth

esi

gnifi

cant

findi

ngs

rela

ted

toth

eva

riab

ledi

stan

ce,

geog

raph

ical

lycl

ose

frie

nds

wer

eal

way

ssi

gnifi

cant

lyhi

gher

;fo

rth

esi

gnifi

cant

findi

ngs

rela

ted

toth

eva

riab

lege

nder

,fe

mal

esw

ere

alw

ays

sign

ifica

ntly

high

erG

C=

geog

raph

ical

lycl

ose;

LD

=lo

ngdi

stan

ce.

∗∗∗ p

<.0

01.

640 A. J. Johnson et al.

females rating the patterns of relating as moreprototypical on these 33 items (Table 2). Fehr(2004) designated two patterns of relating “IfI need to talk my friend will listen” and “IfI have a problem, my friend will listen” asillustrating self-disclosure, while “If I want tohave fun, my friend will go out with me” and“If I am bored my friend will spend time withme” as focusing on activities. She found that,“women assigned significantly higher ratingsto the self-disclosure patterns than did men.There was no gender difference, however, inratings of the activity patterns” (Fehr, 2004,p. 278). Using α = .001, this study replicatesthis pattern of findings. Fehr also found thateven though overall women rated the pat-terns higher in prototypicality than men, thistrend was stronger for the most prototypicalpatterns. In her study, 16 out of 24 patternsrated above the median had significant gen-der differences, while below the median, 10out of 24 had significant gender differences.We did not replicate this finding in this study,with 15 of the 24 patterns above the medianhaving significant gender differences, and 18of the 24 patterns below the median havingsignificant gender differences. Therefore, thisstudy allowed a replication of Fehr’s Study3 findings with a larger sample size (542 ascompared to 94 for Study 3; Fehr, 2004).

Preliminary analyses illustrated that LDfriends reported a significantly longer aver-age friendship duration in years, t (553) =−8.85, p < .001, η2 (eta—a measure ofeffect size) = 0.12, MGC = 4.55, SDGC =4.47, MLD = 8.02, SDLD = 4.78. Therefore,we ran an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)to examine RQ3, which asked whether GCand LD friends differ on the IOS scale (Aronet al., 1992). The difference was not signif-icant, F (1, 551) = 1.32, p > .05, η2 = 0.00,MGC = 4.81, SDGC = 1.44, MLD = 4.76,SDLD = 1.45, when we held friendship dura-tion constant, F (1, 551) = 4.48, p < .05,η2 = 0.01.

Overall, the Self-Report Closeness Scale(Johnson, 2001) showed no evidence of asignificant difference between GC and LDfriends, F (1, 552) = 2.79, p > .05, η2 = 0.00,MGC = 6.16, SDGC = 0.83, MLD = 6.20,

SDLD = 0.90, when we held friendship dura-tion constant, F (1, 552) = 40.13, p < .001,η2 = 0.07. To examine RQ4, which askedwhether the IOS scales predicted self-reportedcloseness levels for both GC and LD friends,we used multiple regressions with self-reported closeness as the dependent variableand the IOS scale and friendship duration aspredictor variables entered in the first block.In the second block, we examined a potentialinteraction by entering a term for the inter-action between the IOS scale and friendshiptype (LD or GC). The overall model yieldedtwo significant main effects (the beta fromthe second block is reported below), adjustedR2 = 0.32, F (2, 551) = 128.98, p < .001.The IOS scale, β (beta—the standardizedregression coefficient) = 0.51, t = 14.39,p < .001, and friendship duration, β = 0.21,t = 5.99, p < .001, were significant predic-tors of self-reported closeness. There was nota significant interaction effect between theIOS scale and type of friend (GC or LD),β = −0.003, t = −0.08, p > .05, suggestingthat considering distance from friend did notmake a significant difference in determiningwhether the IOS scale predicted self-reportedcloseness levels.

General Discussion

By examining relational closeness in GC andLD friends, one can determine how previousmethods of defining and measuring closenessare related to geographic distance and face-to-face communication frequency. One canthen decide how best to define and measurerelational closeness in a society in which bar-riers to having meaningful LD relationshipsare falling (Adams, 1998). This study illus-trates how definitions of relational closenessdiffer across type of relationship and suggeststhat measures of closeness not taking thesedifferences into account are limited.

Individuals did not significantly differ intheir self-reported closeness between LD andGC friends, replicating past research (Johnson,2001). Perhaps individuals receive differentrewards from LD and GC friends, providingincentives for maintaining both types of rela-tionships. The replication of the Parks and

Long-distance closeness 641

Floyd (1996) study hints at what some ofthese different rewards might be. For example,frequency of interaction and comfort and easemay be particularly rewarding aspects of GCfriends, while LD friends may be rewardingdue to their trusted confidant status. Overall,the definitions of closeness for GC and LDfriends were similar, with “self-disclosure”and “help and support” being two of the mostcommon definitions for both types of friends.For all except LD female friends, “frequencyof interaction” was one of the most com-mon definitions reported, with nearly one thirdof the LD male friends reporting this defi-nition of closeness. Perhaps for LD males,“frequency of interaction” is relative to thenumber of expected and actual face-to-faceinteractions or relates to interaction over otherchannels besides face-to-face. In addition,“frequency of interaction” may relate to a con-tinued importance of shared activities evenwith LD males. GC females were significantlymore likely to report “comfort and ease” and“frequency of interaction” than LD females.LD females were significantly more likelyto report “understanding” than GC females.LD males were more likely to report “self-disclosure” and “trust” than GC males. Inter-estingly, the only type of friend who did notinclude “trust” in their top five definitions ofcloseness was GC males.

This study’s findings suggest that males inLD friendships define closeness utilizing qual-ities researchers often associate more closelywith female friendships. That LD male friend-ships report the definitions of self-disclosureand trust more often than GC male friend-ships supports this argument. In addition,for LD male friends, self-disclosure may tosome degree replace the shared activities inwhich they may have participated togetherwhen they were geographically close. Becausewomen tend to focus on self-disclosure intheir friendships (Dolgin et al., 1991), theycan engage in this activity whether they aregeographically close or separated by distance,leading to less difference in how GC and LDfemales define closeness.

Another researcher who has examined howto conceptualize friendship intimacy is Fehr(2004). This study expands Fehr’s results by

exploring whether distance affects prototypi-cality ratings for patterns of relating indicativeof friendship intimacy. Overall, the ratingswere very similar for GC and LD friends,but the few significant differences illustratefactors that may be more or less importantfor each type of friend when assessing close-ness level. Participants rated “providing helpwhen the friend is in trouble” as the most pro-totypical interaction pattern for GC friends.The fact LD friends rated this pattern sig-nificantly lower shows an important factor ofGC friendships that LD relationships may gowithout. LD friends may be willing to acceptthat when they are in trouble, their friend maynot live close enough to provide assistance.The respondents might have also answeredthis question with the understanding theirLD friend cannot offer assistance because ofthe distance. Adams (1985–1986) also foundphysical distance and likelihood of helpinga friend were inversely related, although shesuggests, “Help with decision making can beoffered on the telephone or through letters”(p. 69). Changes in technology should allowfriends to be available over other channelsbesides face-to-face more frequently (Adams,1998), which should expand the friends’ abil-ity to provide emotional and informationalsupport. GC friends may provide both prac-tical and emotional support, while LD friendsmay have to focus more on emotional support.Researchers should further explore how indi-viduals utilize different relationships to build aweb of support, with both GC and LD friendscontributing different components.

As in Fehr (2004), there were signifi-cant gender differences in the prototypical-ity ratings, with women in general ratingthese relating patterns as more prototypicalthan men did. Although this study replicatedFehr’s finding that women were more likelyto rate patterns relevant to self-disclosure asmore prototypical than men, this study didnot replicate Fehr’s finding that gender dif-ferences were stronger for more prototypicalpatterns of relating than less prototypical pat-terns of relating. In addition, an interestingpattern between the gender differences andthe significant differences related to friend-ship distance emerged. Even though 69% of

642 A. J. Johnson et al.

the overall patterns of relating showed a sig-nificant gender difference, only one of thefive significant differences between GC andLD friends (20%) showed a significant genderdifference. Women were significantly morelikely to espouse the pattern of “If I need myfriend, she or he will be there for me,” whichGC friends were also significantly more likelyto espouse. Therefore, the components of rela-tional closeness related to physical distanceappear to be ones that men and women con-sider of similar importance. The factors thatsignificantly differed by friendship distancevaried in terms of prototypicality ratings: 40%(two of the five) of the patterns with signifi-cant differences related to distance were in thetop 10 in overall prototypicality ratings, and80% (four of the five) were above the median.

When examining whether physical distancebetween friends relates to two prior methodsof measuring closeness, LD and GC friend-ships did not significantly differ when weused the Self-Reported Closeness Scale or theIOS scale to measure closeness (Aron et al.,1992), once we took into account that LDfriends reported significantly longer friend-ship durations. The longer duration of LDfriendships may mean individuals have moreinvested in LD friendships, providing incen-tive for them to continue (Rusbult, 1980). Thisfinding may be related to LD friends beingformer high school friends, while GC friendswere college friends, but even in the gen-eral population, LD friends may be of longerduration. For instance, Adams (1985–1986)found among older adult women, the individ-uals’ older friends were also more likely tobe LD. As many LD friendships may havebegun geographically close, this may accountfor the similarities between the two types offriends. Nonetheless, as Adams (1998) pointsout, with new technologies there are moreopportunities to make LD friends who werenever geographically close. Future researchcould benefit from comparing LD friendshipsthat have or have not ever spent time geo-graphically close to one another.

When examining current methods of mea-suring relational closeness, the IOS scalepredicted self-reported closeness levels wellfor both GC and LD friends. Therefore,

the IOS scale and the Self-Report ClosenessScales appear independent of physical dis-tance between the friends when we held dura-tion of friendship constant. The IOS scale isbased on whether individuals perceive theirfriend as part of themselves. If people believetheir friend is included as part of themselves,then we would expect that friend to have animpact on that person’s behaviors, decisions,and goals regardless of their physical distancefrom one another. The IOS results also sup-port the importance of including cognitive andaffective components of closeness when con-sidering LD friendships. As much of the priorresearch using the IOS has focused on roman-tic relationships (e.g., Aron et al., 1992) ormanipulated closeness levels among strangers(e.g., Aron, Melinat, Aron, Vallone, & Bator,1997), researchers need to use this measure toexamine friendship.

As this study focused on college students,future research should continue to compareLD and GC friendships across the lifespan.In general, the results of this study are sim-ilar to those Adams (1985–1986) obtainedamong older women. Rawlins (1994) notesplaying the role of friend has to competewith other roles individuals play in adult-hood, such as spouse, parent, and employee.College represents a time when individualsoften play fewer such roles, leaving moretime for friendships. Older age may also rep-resent such a time (Adams, 1987). There-fore, researchers should also focus on midlifefriendships, when these relationships com-pete with other roles, to add to the friend-ship literature. One friendship type foundin mature adult friendships is the dormantfriendship, in which contact is infrequent,but the individuals believe that the personwill be there in times of need (Rawlins,1994). When the individual actually asks thefriend to provide aid or they have a chanceto interact, such as a visit or reunion, theymay reassess their degree of closeness to thefriend.

Overall, this study provides a window intowhy individuals define certain friendships as“close” and how geographic distance andassessments of relational closeness relate toeach other. Replicating Parks and Floyd’s

Long-distance closeness 643

(1996) study shows LD female friends focusedmore on understanding, while GC femalefriends focused more on ease and frequencyof interaction. LD male friends focused moreon self-disclosure and trust than GC malefriends did. Results from the replication ofFehr’s (2004) prototypicality study illustrateGC friends focused more on practical helpand support and on “being there” for theirfriend when they need them. The results fromthe IOS scale (Aron et al., 1992) illustratethis scale may be the most appropriate touse when measuring closeness in LD friend-ships, as it seems to be tapping into thesame factors as the Johnson (2001) self-reportcloseness measure in a more standardized for-mat. The findings of this study support a mul-tidimensional conceptualization of closeness,in which researchers need to understand whataspects of relational closeness are related tophysical distance and how GC and LD friend-ships may differ on individual components ofrelational closeness but not significantly differin overall relational closeness levels.

The results of this study also add to theargument that friendship maintenance occursin a variety of channels and not solely face-to-face (Stafford, Kline, & Dimmick, 1999).The introduction of new channels of commu-nication has changed how individuals main-tain both GC and LD friendships. Researchersseeking to measure such concepts as rela-tional maintenance and relational closenessneed to incorporate these newer channels ofinterpersonal communication in their mea-sures of interaction frequency. For instance,researchers could expand the RCI frequencysubscale to include other channels besidesface-to-face, such as phone and e-mail con-tact (similar to Ledbetter, Griffin, & Sparks,2007), tapping into other types of behavioralcloseness.

Limitations

These studies’ samples are potentially lim-ited because they were convenience ratherthan random. As such, researchers should con-sider the demographics of the samples whenseeking to generalize these findings to othercollege students. The fact that the samples

for these studies were mainly Caucasian sug-gests several possible limitations. Whetherthese findings are generally applicable to otherracial or ethnic groups or to other culturesis a question for future research. The domi-nant culture in the country in which we con-ducted this study is individualistic. Whetherindividuals from more collectivistic culturesand subcultures define closeness in a sim-ilar way is unknown. In addition, Westernculture has an ideal view of friendship asa relationship that is voluntary, is composedof similar individuals, is divorced from kin-ship relationships, and is not focused on thepractical help that each individual can giveto the other (Bell & Coleman, 1999). Eventhough Bell and Coleman (1999) claim actualstructural societal constraints limit the validityof this Western portrayal of closeness, thesebeliefs may affect how individuals definecloseness in the United States. Thus, individ-uals in other cultures may consider differentfacets of friendship intimacy when assess-ing the closeness of their friendships. It maybe interesting to explore how individuals inmore homogeneous friendships define close-ness as compared to how more heterogeneousfriends define closeness. For example, Rawl-ins (2009) discusses how structural and his-torical factors related to American society’sviews on race impact cross-race friendships.Individuals in cross-race friendships may feela simultaneous pull between gaining closenessbut also maintaining separateness due to theirheterogeneity. In addition, such componentsof closeness as comfort and ease, acceptance,and respect may be particularly important tothese more heterogeneous friendships. Friend-ships are also more formalized in some othercultures (Brain, 1976), and degree of formal-ization might affect how individuals definecloseness. For example, in more formal cul-tures, displays of friendship may be moreimportant in determining who people considera close friend.

Concluding remarks

In conclusion, this research has both practi-cal and theoretical importance. In LD friend-ships, factors such as understanding, trust,

644 A. J. Johnson et al.

and the belief that the friendship can surviverocky times illustrate how these friendshipsplay important roles in many lives. As soci-ety becomes increasingly mobile (Blieszner &Adams, 1992), LD friendships can continueto provide some types of needed support. Ifresearchers fail to account for LD friendshipsand the effects distance has on these rela-tionships, they ignore a potentially importantpart of an individual’s social support network.Theoretical implications of this study includea richer, multidimensional understanding ofthe relational closeness concept. Researcherscan also more clearly understand how therelational closeness concept relates to geo-graphic distance. In sum, researchers shouldcontinue to consider how components of rela-tional closeness may differ for various typesof interpersonal relationships.

References

Adams, R. G. (1985–1986). Emotional closeness andphysical distance between friends: Implications forelderly women living in age-segregated and age-integrated settings. International Journal of Aging andHuman Development, 22 , 55–76.

Adams, R. G. (1987). Patterns of network change: Alongitudinal study of friendships of elderly women.The Gerontologist , 27 , 222–227.

Adams, R. G. (1998). The demise of territorial determin-ism: Online friendships. In R. G. Adams & G. Allan(Eds.), Placing friendship in context (pp. 153–182).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love as the expansion ofself: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. NewYork: Hemisphere.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusionof Other in the Self scale and the structure ofinterpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 63 , 596–612.

Aron, A., & Fraley, B. (1999). Relationship closeness asincluding other in the self: Cognitive underpinningsand measures. Social Cognition, 17 , 140–160.

Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R., &Bator, R. (1997). The experimental generation ofinterpersonal closeness: A procedure and some pre-liminary findings. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 23 , 363–377.

Bell, S., & Coleman, S. (1999). The anthropology offriendship: Enduring themes and future possibilities.In S. Bell & S. Coleman (Eds.), The anthropology offriendship (pp. 1–19). New York: Berg.

Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. (1989). Therelationship closeness inventory: Assessing the close-ness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 57 , 792–807.

Blieszner, R., & Adams, R. G. (1992). Adult friendship.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Brain, R. (1976). Friends and lovers . New York: BasicBooks.

Dolgin, K. G., Meyer, L., & Schwartz, J. (1991). Effectsof gender, target’s gender, topic, and self-esteem ondisclosure to best and middling friends. Sex Roles, 25 ,311–329.

Fehr, B. (2004). Intimacy expectations in same-sexfriendships: A prototype interaction-pattern model.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 ,265–284.

Guldner, G. T., & Swensen, C. H. (1995). Time spenttogether and relationship quality: Long-distance rela-tionships as a test case. Journal of Social and PersonalRelationships, 12 , 313–320.

Johnson, A. J. (2001). Examining the maintenance offriendships: Are there differences between geographi-cally close and long distance friends? CommunicationQuarterly , 49 , 425–436.

Johnson, A. J., Haigh, M. M., Becker, J. A. H., Craig,E. A., & Wigley, S. (2004, November). College stu-dents’ use of email to maintain relationships. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the National Com-munication Association, Chicago.

Kelley, H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J.,Huston, T., Levinger, G., et al. (1983). Close rela-tionships . New York: Freeman.

Ledbetter, A. M., Griffin, E., & Sparks, G. G. (2007).Forecasting “friends forever”: A longitudinal inves-tigation of sustained closeness between best friends.Personal Relationships, 14 , 343–350.

Monsour, M. (1992). Meanings of intimacy in cross- andsame-sex friendships. Journal of Social and PersonalRelationships, 9 , 277–295.

Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Meanings for close-ness and intimacy in friendship. Journal of Social andPersonal Relationships, 13 , 85–107.

Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2002). TheInternet goes to college: How students are living inthe future with today’s technology. Retrieved October15, 2005, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIPCollege Report.pdf

Rawlins, W. K. (1992). Friendship matters: Communica-tion, dialectics, and the life course. New York: AldineDe Gruyter.

Rawlins, W. K. (1994). Being there and growing apart:Sustaining friendships during adulthood. In D. J.Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication andrelational maintenance (pp. 275–294). San Diego,CA: Academic Press.

Rawlins, W. K. (2009). The compass of friendship: Nar-ratives, identities, and dialogues . Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Repinski, D. J., & Zook, J. M. (2005). Three measuresof closeness in adolescents’ relationships with par-ents and friends: Variations and developmental sig-nificance. Personal Relationships, 12 , 79–102.

Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psy-chology, 4 , 328–350.

Long-distance closeness 645

Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Satisfaction and commitment infriendships. Representative Research in Social Psy-chology, 11 , 96–105.

Stafford, L. (2005). Maintaining long distance and cross-residential relationships . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stafford, L., Kline, S., & Dimmick, J. (1999). Homeemail: Relational maintenance and gratification oppor-tunities. Journal of Broadcasting and ElectronicMedia, 43 , 659–669.

Swain, S. (1989). Covert intimacy: Closeness in men’sfriendships. In B. Risman & P. Schwartz (Eds.),Gender in intimate relationships: A microstructuralapproach (pp. 71–86). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Wiseman, J. P. (1986). Friendship: Bonds and binds in avoluntary relationship. Journal of Social and PersonalRelationships, 3 , 191–212.