The standard assumption about long-distance relationships is that they are a compromise, a second-best arrangement quietly starving for lack of presence, to be endured until the distance can be closed. It is worth holding that assumption up against the research, because the findings complicate it in a way that flips the usual worry on its head. They also change what nurturing a long-distance relationship should actually mean, moving the effort away from where most people aim it.
Distance can deepen intimacy rather than drain it
The most striking evidence comes from a 2013 study in the Journal of Communication by Crystal Jiang and Jeffrey Hancock, with the neat title “Absence Makes the Communication Grow Fonder.” Comparing long-distance dating couples with couples who lived near each other, they found that the distant couples reported just as much intimacy, and in some respects more, along with comparable trust and satisfaction. The relationships were not the fragile, withering things the stereotype predicts.
Two mechanisms explained it. The first is that separated couples tend to disclose more adaptively. With limited time and limited channels, conversation gets more deliberate; you are less likely to spend it on idle proximity and more likely to spend it talking about what actually matters, so the exchanges do more emotional work. The second is idealization. Distance leaves gaps in what you can observe about the other person, and we tend to fill those gaps with a flattering picture, imagining the best version of a partner we cannot see having an ordinary, irritable Tuesday. Together, deeper disclosure and a rosier image push intimacy up rather than down. The fear that distance equals decay is close to the opposite of what the data show.
The Artful Age
A weekly letter on aging well, family across generations, and the creative life after the kids leave home.
The hidden catch is the reunion, not the distance
That would be an unambiguously cheerful story if not for the second mechanism carrying a sting in its tail. The same idealization that helps sustain a relationship across distance turns out to be a liability, and the research that shows this also relocates the danger point entirely. In work by Laura Stafford and Andy Merolla, long-distance couples were actually more stable than geographically close ones while they remained apart. The trouble arrived when they finally closed the gap. About a third of the couples broke up within three months of becoming geographically close.
The reason fits the earlier finding exactly. The couples who had idealized each other the most, and those who had gone longest between visits, were the least stable once they were living near one another. The idealized partner, assembled lovingly across the distance, collided with the real one who leaves socks on the floor and is short-tempered before coffee, and the gap between the imagined person and the actual person was hardest to absorb for those whose imagined version had drifted furthest from reality. The crisis point, in other words, is not the months apart. It is the reunion, the very moment everyone treats as the happy ending.
What this means for nurturing one
Read together, the two findings point the effort somewhere other than fighting the distance. Three things follow. The first is to lean into the deliberate communication that distance naturally encourages, the real, substantive disclosure the research links to intimacy, rather than measuring closeness by the sheer volume of messages. A hundred idle pings do less than one honest conversation. The second, and the least intuitive, is to keep idealization honest. Because a too-perfect image is what makes reunions hard, the protective move is to let your partner see the boring and the flawed, the bad days and the annoying habits, so that the person they are missing is a real one rather than a highlight reel. It feels counterproductive to puncture the romance, but it is what cushions the eventual landing.
The third is to treat closing the distance as the real test to prepare for, not the finish line where the work stops. The evidence suggests the transition deserves the same attention couples lavish on the separation itself: talking in advance about ordinary logistics, expecting an adjustment period, and understanding that the first weeks of proximity are a renegotiation rather than a victory lap. A long-distance relationship, on this evidence, is often not fragile in the way people fear. Its risk simply lives at a different point than everyone assumes.
What the evidence does and does not settle
A few honest limits belong here. Most of this research studies dating couples, often younger ones, rather than marriages or families separated by circumstance, and the patterns may not transfer cleanly to every situation. The studies are largely correlational and rest on self-report, so they describe reliable tendencies rather than guarantees, and communication technology has kept changing since they were run. Long-distance relationships also vary enormously, between those chosen for a season and those imposed by work, immigration, or military service, and the idealization risk is really about extreme idealization, not the ordinary fondness of missing someone. These are averages, not verdicts on any particular couple.
Within those limits, the reframing is a hopeful one, and more useful than the stereotype it replaces. Nurturing a long-distance relationship is less about grimly defending it against the distance, which can quietly do some of the intimacy-building work for you, and more about keeping the whole thing honest enough that the person your partner has been missing is recognizably the person who eventually walks through the door.