Relationship RxCase Study

K.Nathalia PenaUniversity of Tennessee

Concern of Interest#20 We tend to think in terms of “I, me and mine” rather than “we, us

and ours”

●Used to being independent

●Long distance rx

●Not sharing burdens ○ Him → Her

Materials●Baseline packets

●One month packets (FAS_1)

●RX evaluations

●Assessment & Feedback DVD’s

Demographics●Ages 45-54

●White

●Education○ Her - Associate's Degree

○ Him- Bachelor's Degree

●Income - (Him) 60-69,000 (Her) 50-59,000

●Marital History○ Both were previously married- 2x

○ Children

■ Her - 4 (6-11), (15-17)- live @home , (18+), 1 deceased

■ Him - 2 - D(12-14), S(15-17) - two weekends a month

Relationship History●Met online

●2.5 years romantically involved, lived together 1 year

●Dated for a year before they moved in together

●Now living apart - Long distance relationship

●Visit each other every 2 months

●Engaged

Top StrengthsHim ( @Baseline)

# 15 We laugh or smile together.

#8 We are happy with our sex life.

#24 Our relationship is a high priority for us.

Her ( @Baseline)

#10 My partner accepts who i am

#33 we listen well

#31 We are very committed

Top ConcernsHer

#20 We think in terms of “I”, “me”

#16 We rarely speak of meaningful things

#27 Significant recent changes (living together →

long distance rx)

Him

#13 We (I) rarely share each other’s burden.

#14 We aren't comfortable leaning on each other for

emotional support

#20 We tend to think in terms of I, me, mine rather than we, us

and ours.

Relationship Rx Recommended TreatmentsOption # 1 - Love Maps

Option #2 - Book Club

Option # 3- Communication Technique Discussion

●“ Business meeting vs. us”

Scales - ISQ

Literature Review1. Staying Close When Apart (Arditti & Kauffman, 2004)

● Long distance relationships (commuter “marriages”) have become more prevalent due to job mobility, education and occupation.

● Intimacy in long distance relationships and the meaning of the experience (temporary/necessary), satisfaction, commitment and strengths. Friendship before relationship was key in confidence within the relationship

● Creative relational maintenance techniques

2. Dimensions of Adult Attachment, Affect Regulation, and Romantic Relationship Functioning (Brennan & Shaver, 1995)

● Early childhood development and attachment influence romantic love (emotional attachment)

3. Balancing the need to be “me”with the need to be “we”: (Slotter et al., 2014)● Balancing one’s needs and needs within dyad. ● Difficult with long distance

Discussion● Autonomy, Interdependence

● Used to being independent

● Long distance rx

● Not sharing burdens

○ Him → Her

Implications

Limitations

● Most romantic relationship research is based on geographically close rx

Future Research

● Early childhood development/attachment theory/personality & romantic relationships with mid-age adults

● Relationship Priority and Commitment in long distance rx

○ Strengths vs. weaknesses

ReferencesArditti, J. A., & Kauffman, M. (2004). Staying Close When Apart: Intimacy and Meaning in Long-Distance Dating Relationships. Journal Of Couple &

Relationship Therapy, 3(1), 27-52. doi:10.1300/J398v03n01_03

Brennan, K.A. and Shaver, P.R. Dimensions of Adult Attachment, Affect Regulation, and Romantic Relationship Functioning Pers Soc Psychol Bull March 1995

21: 267-283, doi:10.1177/0146167295213008

Slotter, E., Duffy, C., & Gardner, W. (2014). Balancing the need to be “me”with the need to b“we”: Applying Optimal Distinctiveness Theory to the

understanding of multiple motives within romantic relationships. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 71-81. doi:10 January 2014