What the Research Actually Shows
Ask most people about long-distance relationships and you'll get some version of the same response: "They never work." It's treated as almost an axiom of romantic life — something to be endured if you must, but fundamentally less real, less stable, and less satisfying than relationships where you can be physically together.
The research disagrees. And it disagrees in ways that are genuinely surprising.
A landmark study by Laura Stafford at the University of Kentucky — one of the most cited pieces of research on long-distance relationships — found that long-distance couples reported higher levels of relationship quality than geographically close couples across multiple dimensions: intimacy, communication, commitment, and overall satisfaction.
Subsequent research has broadly replicated this finding. Long-distance relationships are not, on average, worse than geographically close ones. In several studies, they're measurably better — at least in their early and middle stages.
How is this possible? The mechanism involves idealisation, communication quality, and what researchers call "relational maintenance behaviours."
When you can't rely on casual, ambient togetherness — sharing space, running errands together, watching television in the same room — every interaction becomes more intentional. Long-distance couples talk because they want to talk. They ask more meaningful questions. They share more about their internal life. Research by Emma Dargie at Queen's University found that long-distance couples engaged in deeper, more intimate conversation than their geographically-close counterparts — simply because proximity wasn't available as a substitute for actual connection.
Researchers including Guldner and Swensen found that long-distance couples report higher levels of idealisation of their partners — and this, counterintuitively, correlates with higher relationship satisfaction. When you're not navigating someone's morning grumpiness or their habit of leaving dishes in the sink, you're relating to the version of them that emerged in meaningful conversations. This isn't denial or delusion — it's an emphasis on the parts that matter most.
The reunion dynamic unique to long-distance relationships — the periodic, anticipated return — generates a particular quality of appreciation that's harder to sustain in constant proximity. Novelty is a well-documented driver of relationship satisfaction, and long-distance relationships have structural novelty built in.
None of this means long-distance relationships are easy. They have specific vulnerabilities that geographically-close relationships don't, and understanding them is what makes the difference between one that thrives and one that slowly corrodes.
The single strongest predictor of long-distance relationship failure isn't the distance itself — it's the absence of a plan to close the distance. Research consistently shows that couples who have a concrete, mutually agreed timeline for eventually living in the same place report significantly higher satisfaction and lower anxiety than those without one. Indefinite distance is corrosive; temporary, purposeful distance is manageable.
Long-distance couples can fall into patterns of over-communication (daily check-ins that feel obligatory rather than desired) or under-communication (drifting without structure). Research suggests that quality consistently matters more than quantity. One deeply connected, distraction-free conversation is more sustaining than six perfunctory check-in texts. Couples who communicate intentionally — and who discuss their communication preferences openly — do better.
One of the unique challenges of long-distance is the growing divergence of daily lives. Your partner is having experiences you're not part of, forming new relationships you don't know, moving through environments you haven't seen. Without regular, honest sharing, imagination fills the gap — and imagination, under stress, tends towards catastrophe. Couples who maintain a sense of shared context through regular, honest conversation navigate this better.
It's worth noting that the research landscape on long-distance relationships has shifted alongside communication technology. Studies from the 1990s, conducted in the era of expensive long-distance calls and handwritten letters, found different patterns than contemporary research conducted in the world of video calling, instant messaging, and shared playlists.
The friction cost of maintaining connection across distance has dropped dramatically. What was once a genuine logistical challenge is now, for most people in developed countries, primarily a psychological one. The distance isn't about the miles anymore. It's about whether two people choose to maintain the connection — and whether they have the communication tools to do it well.
Long-distance relationships aren't for everyone, and there's no shame in that. The particular emotional demands — sustained patience, comfort with uncertainty, the ability to sustain intimacy through text and screens — aren't evenly distributed. Some people find them invigorating. Others find them genuinely intolerable, and that's important self-knowledge too.
But the assumption that they "never work" doesn't survive contact with the evidence. For couples who communicate well, who have a shared vision for the future, and who are willing to be intentional about the relationship, long distance can be not just survivable but genuinely enriching. The research says so.
The Love Guide's Long-Distance Dating chapter covers the full research landscape — plus practical strategies for communication, reunions, managing jealousy, and planning a future together.
Get The Love Guide — $935 chapters · 60-day guarantee