This article was downloaded by: [University of West Florida]On: 10 October 2014, At: 03:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Applied CommunicationResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjac20

Relational Maintenance during MilitaryDeployment: Perspectives of Wives ofDeployed US SoldiersAndy J. MerollaPublished online: 12 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Andy J. Merolla (2010) Relational Maintenance during Military Deployment:Perspectives of Wives of Deployed US Soldiers , Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38:1,4-26, DOI: 10.1080/00909880903483557

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909880903483557

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Relational Maintenance duringMilitary Deployment: Perspectivesof Wives of Deployed US SoldiersAndy J. Merolla

This manuscript is one of many in a special issue of the Journal of Applied Communication Research on

‘‘Communication and Distance,’’ Volume 38, No. 1.

Deployment-based separations, during which military spouses’ communication is limited

and their uncertainty heightened, present numerous challenges to spouses’ enactment of

relational maintenance. To better understand how partners maintain relationships

during deployment, this study analyzes interviews with 33 wives of deployed US service

members. Content analysis yielded 24 forms of relational maintenance. Results also

indicated factors that potentially shape and complicate maintenance performance, such

as restrictions on the amount, timing, and content of communication. Rather than

demonstrating universally effective patterns of maintenance, results suggest that spouses

enact maintenance commensurate with their individual needs and resources. The author

speculates that during deployment separations, spouses potentially negotiate an interplay

in their relational maintenance between, on the one hand, careful planning and, on the

other hand, creative improvisation.

Keywords: Relationship Maintenance; Interpersonal Communication; Relational

Cognition; Marriage; Long-distance Relating

The vast number of military families in the US and the prevalence of long-term

deployments signal the need for research that elaborates the effects of military

deployment on relational life. Deployments present numerous challenges to military

spouses. During deployments, partners are separated from one another by hundreds

Andy J. Merolla is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Colorado State

University, Fort Collins, CO. A previous version of this manuscript was presented at the 2007 meeting of the

International Communication Association, San Francisco. The author expresses gratitude to Dan Steinberg,

Shuangyue Zhang, Laura Crum, Carissa Dunlap, and the student assistants at Ohio State for their assistance in

this research. Correspondence to: Andy J. Merolla, Department of Communication Studies, 209-A Eddy Hall,

Fort Collins, CO 80521, USA. E-mail: andy.merolla@colostate.edu

ISSN 0090-9882 (print)/ISSN 1479-5752 (online) # 2010 National Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/00909880903483557

Journal of Applied Communication Research

Vol. 38, No. 1, February 2010, pp. 4�26

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4

or thousands of miles, often with limited or sporadic communication (Bell &

Schumm, 1999). Consequently, deployment-based separations can promote both

personal and relational distress (Figley, 1993; Vormbrock, 1993). Nonetheless, despite

the challenges of deployment, it appears many military partners maintain satisfying

relationships and are remarkably adept at managing deployment-period difficulties

(Karney & Crown, 2007; McCubbin, McCubbin, Thompson, Han, & Allen, 1997).

To further understand spouses’ deployment management, this study focuses on

partners’ relational maintenance. This is an area of research identified by military

scholars as understudied (Drummet, Coleman, & Cable, 2003). A broader goal of this

study is to highlight potential complexities characterizing partners’ deployment

experiences, especially the factors facilitating, hindering, or complicating their

relational maintenance.

Military Deployment and Relationships

Over the last two decades, US service member deployments have increased in

frequency and length (Keller et al., 2005). These increases are partly attributable to the

US military’s ongoing conflicts throughout the Middle East. Since 2001, many service

members have been deployed multiple times. Considering there are approximately 1

million full-time US service members and 1 million reservists (Department of

Defense [DoD], 2006), as well as over 100,000 civilians performing US-funded work

in and around Iraq (roughly 20% of whom are US citizens; Congressional Budget

Office, 2008), it is apparent that deployments affect the lives and relationships of

many people.

Although service members report deployments have some positive consequences,

such as self-improvement or extra pay (Newby et al., 2005), deployment-induced

separations from loved ones are a prime drawback of military service (Bell &

Schumm, 1999). As Medway, Davis, Cafferty, Chappell, and O’Hearn (1995) stated,

‘‘data from a variety of studies of both brief, intermittent separations and war-time

separations shows that these forced disruptions of family life cause much personal

distress’’ (p. 98). Indeed, for soldiers and their partners, deployment separations can

heighten anxiety, uncertainty, and loneliness, as well as decrease relational closeness,

satisfaction, and emotional support (Burrell, Adams, Durand, & Castro, 2006; Wood,

Scarville, & Gravino, 1995). A DoD Mental Health Advisory Team (2007) study

found that about 27% of a sample of deployed married soldiers in Iraq experienced

some form of marital problem during their deployments; this percentage was found

to be higher for soldiers deployed six months or longer (relative to those deployed

less than six months).

Inquiry into the effects of deployment on relationships is rooted in influential

studies conducted during WWII (e.g., Boulding, 1950; Hill, 1949). Hill’s systems-

based longitudinal analysis of families of WWII soldiers was especially groundbreak-

ing in its explication of family member adaptation to deployment separation and

reunion. Hill characterized wartime deployments as periods of family crisis, arguing

that certain responses helped reduce family strain while others agitated existing

Maintenance During Deployment 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4

problems, threatened well-being, and interfered with soldiers’ reintegration into the

family system. Building on this work, scholars continued to examine relational issues

during the wars in Vietnam and Persian Gulf (McCubbin, Dahl, Lester, Benson, &

Robertson, 1976; Medway et al., 1995) as well as various peacekeeping missions (Bell,

Schumm, Knott, & Ender, 1999; Ender, 1995; Wood et al., 1995). But given the US’s

ongoing military operations, both scholars and military leaders recognize the need for

additional research of partners’ deployment experiences (Burrell et al., 2006;

Sahlstein, Maguire, & Timmerman, in press). One of these research needs concerns

partners’ day-to-day deployment-period relationship maintenance practices (Drum-

met et al., 2003).

McCubbin (1979) noted three decades ago that many studies of deployment

separation ‘‘have tended to emphasize the dysfunctional responses to separation’’

such as ‘‘spouses’ manifestations of depression, anxiety, acting out behavior, and

psychosomatic complaints’’ (p. 238). There have since been efforts to explore military

partners’ family life experiences outside the context of psychological disorder

(McCubbin et al., 1997). Scholars such as Newby et al. (2005) describe a shift in

focus ‘‘from the deficit- or problem-focused paradigm . . .to a strength paradigm

grounded in such concepts as coping, hardiness, resiliency, and positive change’’

(p. 819). Consistent with this shift, relational maintenance research can identify

forms of functional adaptation to deployment. That is, partners’ feelings of emotional

distance from one another, contributors to the ‘‘pile-up’’ of deployment stress

(McCubbin & Patterson, 1982), are potentially lessened by partners’ engagement in

maintenance behaviors (see Canary, Stafford, & Semic, 2002 for a discussion of

relational maintenance and stress management).

Conceptualizing Relational Maintenance during Deployment

Although conceptualizations of relational maintenance vary, most notably as to

whether maintenance behaviors should be viewed as strategic or routine, sustaining

or enhancing of relationships (Dainton & Stafford, 1993; Stafford, 2003), main-

tenance is conceptualized here as communicative and cognitive activity occurring

both strategically and routinely that solidifies relational bonds. Differentiating

strategic and routine maintenance is the degree to which acts are performed with

the intent to maintain the relationship; in short, strategic behaviors are enacted with

the intent to maintain, whereas routine behaviors, perhaps as a result of continual

use, are enacted largely out of habit (Dainton & Stafford). The conceptualization of

relational maintenance in this study seems to underscore the consequentiality of

maintenance behaviors in partners’ day-to-day management of the emotional

distancing promoted by deployment separation (Vormbrock, 1993).

This conceptualization of maintenance is also broad enough that it potentially

converges with other important concepts, such as coping and social support. In the

context of deployment, it is difficult to clearly decipher such concepts as maintenance,

coping, and support. For example, when a wife copes with a deployment separation

partly through social support from her family and friends*such support might come

6 A. J. Merolla

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4

in the form of, for example, advice or new perspective on the situation (Maguire &

Sahlstein, 2009)*this support could help her enact maintenance communication with

her husband in a productive manner. Previous studies indeed indicate that when

romantic partners interact with supportive network members, this interaction has the

potential to positively affect the romantic partners’ relationship (e.g., through

enhanced social approval or reinforcement of the relationship; see Felmlee, 2003).

Network members have therefore been identified as a key source of relational

maintenance (Stafford & Canary, 1991). Additionally, in the context of stressful

relational circumstances, such as when partners manage chronic illness, coping,

support, and relational maintenance behaviors have been shown to function

reciprocally in the sustaining of relationships (Haas, 2002).

Perhaps, then, in the context of deployment separations, the concepts of support,

coping, and maintenance can be profitably nested within the larger domain of

deployment adaptation. Supporting the position that relational maintenance

encapsulates a form of deployment adaptation, some scholars have proposed that

deployment stress is mitigated when partners’ maintain relational satisfaction and a

sense of connection with one another (e.g., Bell et al., 1999). Van Breda (1999) stated,

‘‘having a stable, secure and happy marital relationship is, by far, the most important

factor in helping families cope with separations’’ (p. 599).

Although limited work examines relational maintenance during military deploy-

ment, much data has been amassed in the general area of relational maintenance.

Scholars have produced several typologies of maintenance behavior. Among the most

commonly applied typologies is Stafford and Canary’s (1991) five-factor model,

consisting of the factors of positivity, openness, assurances, social networks, and shared

tasks. More elaborate typologies also exist, comprising seven (Stafford, Dainton, &

Haas, 2000), 10 (Canary, Stafford, Hause, & Wallace, 1993), and 11 (Dindia & Baxter,

1987) factors, with additional forms of behavior, such as humor, avoidance, mediated

communication, ceremonies and rituals, and small talk. Generally speaking, main-

tenance research aims to reveal how these classes of behavior, at different relational

stages, serve to repair, sustain, and/or enhance partners’ relationship satisfaction,

commitment, and stability (Canary & Dainton, 2006).

Though the majority of relational maintenance research examines maintenance

behavior usage in the context of US adult romantic relationships, the maintenance

typologies (and self-report measures) have been used to examine other relational

types (e.g., parent�child; Vogl-Bauer, Kalbfleisch, & Beatty, 1999) and cultural

contexts (e.g., intercultural marriages; Ballard-Reisch, Weigel, & Zaguidoulline,

1999). Still, several writers have commented how one relational context*long-

distance relationships*remains especially understudied (Aylor, 2003; Dainton &

Aylor, 2002; Stafford, 2005). Aylor, for example, described how maintenance studies

typically focus on geographically close relationships or do not differentiate behaviors

and their use based on whether partners are geographically proximal or distant. This,

combined with findings showing that one of the most common forms of routine and

strategic maintenance is ‘‘couples merely being together’’ (Dainton & Stafford, 1993,

Maintenance During Deployment 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4

p. 267), has reinforced the importance of face-to-face communication for the

maintenance of relationships.

Yet, due to the nature of existing categories of maintenance, such as positivity,

openness, and assurances, it is safe to assume that most forms of maintenance can be

enacted by partners when they are together and apart (e.g., through mediated

communication; Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Stafford, 2005). Demonstrating this,

Dainton and Aylor (2001) utilized Stafford and Canary’s (1991) five-factor

maintenance measure to examine maintenance engagement in long-distance and

geographically close dating relationships. Dainton and Aylor’s (2001) results suggest

that distant and proximal dating partners likely engage in the same forms of

maintenance behavior but do so in different patterns or frequencies. Perhaps the

most important finding of Dainton and Aylor (2001) was that maintenance

performance was predicted by partners’ amount of face-to-face communication.

Specifically, the pattern of maintenance for long-distance partners with frequent face-

to-face communication was more similar to that of geographically close partners than

it was to long-distance partners with infrequent face-to-face communication. The

authors therefore argued that distant partners with some face-to-face interaction are

‘‘significantly different’’ from partners with no face-to-face communication (p. 184).

Indicating some of the specific ways that distance affects relationship maintenance,

Sahlstein’s (2004) qualitative analysis identified how romantic partners manage

tensions as they fluctuate between togetherness and separateness. Applying a

dialectical perspective and obtaining audio-recorded conversations with both

members of the dyad, Sahlstein found that distance can promote some forms of

maintenance while hindering others. For example, whereas distance can be beneficial

to partners because it motivates them to enact positivity during face-to-face visits,

distance can tax partners’ ability to spend time with friends and family due to the

often short-term nature of partners’ visits home. Similarly, whereas being apart can

help partners better appreciate and enjoy their face-to-face interaction, being apart

can constrain (and thus detract from) face-to-face interaction if partners have to

spend a significant amount of their time together planning future visits.

Overall, then, it appears geographic separation can both hinder and aid relation-

ship maintenance. Based on Le and Agnew’s (2001) daily diary study of emotional

needs in romantic relationships, geographic separation can also alter partners’

understandings of and expectations for relationship maintenance. 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.

Positive emotion for long-distance partners thus becomes less about specific

moments of togetherness and more about ‘‘relational events such as talking on the

phone, writing and receiving letters, making plans, and thinking about the partner’’

(Le & Agnew, p. 436).

The current study, and its focus on deployment separations, continues the effort to

understand the role of distance in the relationship maintenance process. Given the

potential exhaustiveness of existing maintenance typologies, it might be expected that

8 A. J. Merolla

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4

the maintenance forms in this study will be consistent with those identified elsewhere.

Efforts will therefore be made to integrate existing research findings into the

interpretation of the results. Still, despite any overlap in findings between the

maintenance forms in this study and existing studies, research of deployment-period

maintenance is beneficial. The unique relational climate of deployment, in which

face-to-face talk is precluded, mediated communication limited, and uncertainty

heightened, could provide new insights regarding long-distance maintenance. These

new insights include the specific forms of maintenance partners use, as well as the

factors that shape partners’ maintenance performance. In sum, this study addresses

the following two research questions:

RQ1: In what ways do partners maintain their relationships during deployment?RQ2: What factors shape, facilitate, or complicate maintenance during deployment?

Methods

Participants

Data originated from semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 33 women married

to US service members. The women ranged in age from 21�62 years, with an average

age of about 30. The partners were married an average of approximately eight years

(range�.75�35 years, SD�9.33). The women identified themselves as Caucasian

(76%), African American (3%), or Native American (3%); six women did not

provide information on ethnicity. Thirty-six percent of the women had children, and

the women resided mainly in the midwest or eastern US. The women’s partners were

currently or recently (within a year of interview) deployed to such locations as Iraq

(61%), Kuwait (9%), South Korea (3%), and Japan (3%). Service members

represented the Army (27%), Navy (18%), Air Force (15%), Marines (12%), and

various reserve components (6%). In seven interviews, military branch or exact

deployment location was not reported; some women, for instance, described their

husbands as service members out at sea or deployed to the Middle East.

The decision to interview civilian partners for this study was based on three

factors. First, this move expedited access to interviewees, as access to the civilian

partners did not necessitate formal US military permission. Second, such data can

contribute valuable insight into civilian partners’ day-to-day deployment experiences

(Figley, 1993). Third, findings from a civilian sample can inform future research of

more diverse samples by highlighting relevant maintenance forms, research questions,

and limitations.

Recruitment and Interview Procedures

The women interviewed for this study were recruited through social networks of

graduate and undergraduate students at a midwestern university. Student inter-

viewers completed IRB training before working on this project and were enrolled in a

course involving interviewing techniques; each interviewer conducted one interview.

Maintenance During Deployment 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Additional interviews were conducted for this project that are not analyzed in this

study (e.g., with non-married individuals). Potential participants were first contacted

and asked if they would participate in a study regarding their experiences with

military deployment. Each potential participant was read a script describing the

study. If the participant provided verbal consent, the interviewer and interviewee met

at an agreed upon location. Per IRB specifications, participants were read the

recruitment script a second time prior to the interview, and then asked to read and

sign a consent form explaining the parameters of their participation, which included

allowing their interview to be recorded and transcribed. Interviews typically lasted

between 30 minutes and one hour.

A simple interview schedule was employed, yet interviewers were free to use

spontaneous probes and follow-ups (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). The interview schedule

was brief and focused on how partners maintain feelings of ‘‘connectedness’’ (e.g., ‘‘In

what ways do you keep alive your feelings of connection to your partner when he is

away on deployment?’’). Phrases such as ‘‘sense of connection’’ or ‘‘feelings of

connection’’ approximate the notion of relational maintenance in an easily

interpretable fashion. Interviewers also asked about issues related to mediated

communication usage, network member relationships, helpful advice, and likes or

dislikes of separations. The interview questions reflected elements of the Critical

Incident Technique (Kain, 2004), wherein participants describe exemplar situations

or narratives (e.g., ‘‘Can you recall a time when you felt emotionally close/distant or

connected/disconnected to/from your partner during deployment?). Questions about

disconnection were useful because they often prompted discussion of the ways the

women overcame feelings such as loneliness and stress. Some questions also covered

preparation for, or reunion from, deployment, but the focus of the analyses is on

maintenance practices enacted during deployment.

Coding and Classification Scheme

The interview transcripts were examined using a multistep analytic induction method

involving individual and joint analysis (Berg, 1995; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). First, the

author conducted line-by-line analysis of all of the interview transcripts to identify

units of analysis. Units were defined as ‘‘thought units’’ based on the conceptualiza-

tion of relational maintenance as communicative or cognitive activity, occurring

strategically or routinely, that promotes or reflects a sense of connection between

partners. A single unit could be a short statement (e.g., ‘‘to maintain my relationship

I think positively’’). Units could also be longer statements that complete single

thoughts. The following passage, for example, was coded as one unit because it

centers on a single idea: ‘‘I try to spend time thinking about the good times we’ve

had, like when we were together the time right before he left, or thinking when we

were intimate; that type of thing.’’ This is a single unit because the information

following the word ‘‘like’’ is used by the participant not to introduce a new thought,

but to clarify how she thinks about positive moments in her relationship during

deployment.

10 A. J. Merolla

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4

The unitizing process resulted in 505 units. Transcripts yielded an average of 15.3

units each (range�7�31, SD�5.5). Prior to creating categories, it was important to

analyze unitizing reliability. To do so, a trained graduate student independently

unitized approximately 15% of the data. Unitizing reliability was found to be

acceptable (Gueztkow’s U�.06). The author then examined the unitized data to

derive categories of relational maintenance. The researcher continually examined and

refined the emergent categories using the constant comparative method (Strauss &

Corbin, 1998). A colleague of the author with expertise in relational maintenance

agreed to separately conduct this same form of analysis. A final coding scheme was

negotiated that maximized the exhaustiveness of the overall category scheme and

exclusiveness of the individual categories.

In line with existing typologies (e.g., Canary et al., 1993; Dindia & Baxter, 1987),

maintenance was categorized in supraordinate (three) and subordinate (24) forms

(see Table 1). The supraordinate categories reflect a higher-order level of abstraction

in which the more specific forms of maintenance can be categorized. The three

supraordinate categories were intrapersonal, mediated partner interaction, and social-

network support; the supraordinate categories contained nine, 10, and 5 maintenance

subordinate categories, respectively. Some merging of categories occurred in the

category construction process. For example, participants described various ways in

which they use relational artifacts (e.g., photos, clothing, dog tags) to remind

themselves of their absent partners. Rather than retain separate categories, these

artifact types were collapsed as one category, called sensory experiences. The author

utilized the emergent scheme to code the full set of unitized data. A trained coder

coded approximately 20% of the data to provide an estimate of intercoder reliability.

Intercoder reliability was good (Scott’s pi�.94). The author made the final coding

decision for the units involving disagreement.

The participants referenced between 6 and 16 categories of maintenance behavior

in their interviews (M�8.7, SD�2.3). Within the three supraordinate categories,

participants referenced (at least once) an average of 2.5 (SD�1.4) forms of

intrapersonal maintenance, 4.5 (SD�1.2) forms of mediated partner interaction

maintenance, and 1.8 (SD�1.1) forms of social-network maintenance. Ninety-one

percent of the participants (n�30) referenced maintenance forms in all three

supraordinate categories; the remaining 9% (n�3) referenced intrapersonal and

mediated partner interaction but not social-network maintenance.

After the category coding, the author reexamined the transcripts in their entirety

for larger themes concerning relational maintenance that can be obscured by

unitization and categorization. This type of analysis includes the portions of the

interviews that were not coded as maintenance-related thought units. Findings from

the thematic analysis are discussed after the maintenance category results.

Results

Where appropriate, the inductive categorization findings (including transcript

excerpts) are presented in light of existing theory and research (Berg, 1995).

Maintenance During Deployment 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Pseudonyms are used to protect participants’ identities. Within the supraordinate

categories, maintenance acts are listed in descending order by the percentage of

participants referencing them. Table 1 provides two percentages for each category: the

percentage of participants referencing the category and the percentage of unitized

data in the category.

Table 1 Percentage of participants (N�33) referencing each category and total units

(n�505) coded into each category

Maintenance categories

Number of participantsreferencing each category

(percentage ofparticipants)

Number of units codedinto each category

(percentage oftotal units)

Intrapersonal 33 (100%) 131 (26%)1. Sensory experiences 24 (73%) 52 (10%)2. Positive thinking and reminiscing 18 (55%) 26 (5%)3. Focus on self 10 (30%) 16 (3%)4. Prayer 9 (27%) 12 (3%)5. Reflect on perceived advantages 7 (21%) 8 (2%)6. Journaling 5 (15%) 5 (1%)7. Imagined interaction 4 (12%) 6 (1%)8. Future thinking 2 (6%) 4 (1%)9. Visiting special locations 2 (6%) 2 (.5%)

Mediated Partner Interaction 33 (100%) 275 (55%)1. Communication mode reference 28 (85%) 94 (19%)

Phone 20 (61%) 26 (5%)Letters/care packages 18 (55%) 23 (5%)E-mail (including digital photos) 17 (52%) 30 (6%)Instant messenger/message board 5 (15%) 6 (1%)Video messages 3 (9%) 3 (1%)Webcam 2 (6%) 6 (1%)

2. Debriefing talk 20 (61%) 36 (7%)3. Topic avoidance 20 (61%) 29 (6%)4. Affection and intimacy 19 (58%) 24 (5%)5. Creating and keeping

communication routines18 (55%) 37 (7%)

6. Future planning 13 (39%) 16 (3%)7. Openness 13 (39%) 16 (3%)8. Reassuring safety 8 (24%) 11 (2%)9. Positivity 6 (18%) 10 (2%)

10. Faith talk 2 (6%) 2 (.5%)

Social Network 30 (91%) 96 (19%)1. Family, peer, and community

support27 (82%) 52 (10%)

2. Family and peer updates 9 (27%) 13 (3%)3. Preoccupation 8 (24%) 10 (2%)4. Support drawn from children 8 (24%) 10 (2%)5. Military-facilitated support 7 (21%) 11 (2%)Other 3 (9%) 3 (1%)

12 A. J. Merolla

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Intrapersonal Maintenance

Intrapersonal maintenance activities are enacted outside of partner interaction.

Maintenance at this level occurs cognitively or through acts performed separate from

the partner.

Sensory experiences. Photos, pets, special songs, and clothing were said to represent,

if not recreate, deployed partners’ physical co-presence during deployment (Sigman,

1991). This is consistent with work on tie-signs (Goffman, 1971) and couple displays

(Lohmann, Arriaga, & Goodfriend, 2003), which speaks to the tangible manifestation

of relationships. Exemplifying this form of maintenance, Scarlett said she keeps her

husband present in her thoughts by wearing his dog tags each day and also carrying

pictures of the two of them with her.

Positive thinking and fond reminiscing. This category is akin to the positivity

category in previous maintenance research (Alberts, Yoshimura, Rabby, & Loschiavo,

2005; Stafford & Canary, 1991). Positivity has referred to amiability in partners’ talk,

but this category refers to individual-level activity, whereby partners think in positive

ways, about positive things. Based on Sahlstein (2004), partners might be able to

promote positive thinking by reflecting on happy memories from when the partners

were together; in this way, partners’ previous positive experiences together can help

them manage their current difficult periods apart.

Focus on self. ‘‘I have pretty much adapted to his deployments by digging into

whatever project I have going on at the time, filling my schedule, and being

independent,’’ said Georgina. This reflects a form of maintenance wherein partners

attend to their own needs (Stafford, 2003). Women noted how they take up new

hobbies or seek out new experiences (e.g., going back to school) in efforts to take

their mind off of their worries for the soldier. McCubbin et al. (1997) suggested such

self-reliance is an essential component of successful deployment adaptation.

Prayer. Prayer is said to help spouses cope with deployment (Busuttil & Busuttil,

2001; McCubbin et al., 1976), and prayer has been found to be a type of relational

maintenance (Dindia & Baxter, 1987). It follows, then, that some women in this study

would identify prayer as a way to foster a sense of connection to their spouse.

Reflect on perceived advantages. Some women noted they remind themselves of the

ways in which they are fortunate in order to stay connected to their husbands.

Spouses’ engagement in this form of cognition fits with research on adaptive

relational cognition (Rusbult, Van Lange, Wildschut, Yovetich, & Verette, 2000),

which reveals that focusing on advantages promotes self-esteem and relational

commitment; such cognition, moreover, can be triggered by relationally threatening

situations. This category emerged in two forms. First, it is done by comparing one’s

situation to those of military families in the US and around the world. Second, this is

done by comparing one’s experiences to those of previous generations of military

families. Nancy described the latter form, reflecting on how fortunate she is to have

access to phone and Internet technologies:

Maintenance During Deployment 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4

I really feel extraordinarily fortunate to have the communication that we do today.

You know when you look at Vietnam or WWII, or previous situations, the Gulf

War, these things were not available. And when I think back to my husband

packing . . . I watched him pack a laptop, an iPOD, all these things, and when I hear

my great uncle talk about going away to war, it was the knapsack on his back and he

left. Communication would come in the form of a telegram or somebody at your

door.

Journaling. Keeping a daily journal may not only be therapeutic during

deployments (Drummet et al., 2003), but it may also stave off feelings of

disconnection from an absent mate. In one sense, the act of journaling can provide

a private outlet for one’s feelings and thoughts. In another sense, the journal

establishes a log of daily experiences that can be shared with the absent partner at a

later date.

Imagined interaction. Honeycutt (2003) suggested geographically separated

partners sustain their relationships by imagining interaction with one another,

helping them feel more emotionally proximal. Women in this study described forms

of imagined interaction, such as talking to photographs or ‘‘consulting’’ their absent

partners. Jesse recalled a time when it felt as if her husband ‘‘was right there next to

me in bed, just holding me and telling me that everything was going to be all right.’’

Future thinking. This category reflects future-oriented cognition, especially in

regards to post-deployment reunions. Wood et al. (1995) reported that Army wives

often fantasize about reunions. This type of fantasizing might reflect the excitement

long-distance partners often have for reunions (Sahlstein, 2004). Although future

thinking might be conceptualized as a form of proactive imagined interaction,

separate categories were created because the units in this category referred to

generalized thought about future events without explicit description of anticipated

verbal and nonverbal interaction (see Honeycutt, 2003).

Visiting special locations. A few women said they visit meaningful environments to

foster positive emotion and recreate a sense of their absent partner’s presence.

Echoing Altman’s (1993) study of the emotionally evocative potential of physical

space, Leigh described how she visits her husband’s old bedroom in his parents’ home

because that space represents her husband.

Maintenance in Mediated Partner Interaction

The next 10 categories involve communication between partners during deployment.

Communication mode reference. When asking women how they maintain their

relationship, their initial responses often described the specific communication modes

they use most frequently or find most useful. References to a communication mode

(e.g., ‘‘I use email’’), without description of the nature of the communication

occurring over that mode, were coded as communication mode reference. See Table 1

for the specific modes mentioned by the women.

14 A. J. Merolla

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Debriefing talk. Debriefing occurs when partners report to one another the events

and news of their days (Vangelisti & Banski, 1993). Alberts et al. (2005) found such

reporting to be amongst the most common types of routine maintenance. Of course,

the extent to which such talk is routine or strategic throughout deployment

separations is open to question. Reflecting this category, Elaine said that when she

speaks to her husband on the phone the first thing they do is ‘‘bring each other up-to-

date on what’s been going on since we last spoke*work, house, cars, bills, et cetera.’’

Greta noted that updates about her work experiences, friends, or even what she

bought at the store foster a sense of normalcy for the couple.

Topic avoidance. This category concerns avoidance of certain topics to achieve

interaction that is positive in nature. ‘‘We avoid talking about anything negative,’’ said

Diana, ‘‘because with the short amount of time we have to talk, it isn’t that

important.’’

Affection and intimacy. Women also reported many ways of expressing affection

with their partner, ranging from expressions of ‘‘I love you’’ to ‘‘kissing noises’’ to

sexually intimate interaction. In previous research, spouses have reported this type of

interaction as the most important form of everyday talk in relationships (Dainton,

1998).

Creating and keeping communication routines. This category captures how partners

regulate and negotiate a sense of routine in their interaction. The main focus of this

category is not so much the use of a communication mode, but rather the timing of,

and commitment to, its use. Units referring only to a mode’s use, but not the nature

or timing of its use, were coded in the communication mode reference category.

Partners, for instance, might set aside time each day to instant message or e-mail.

Kylie said, ‘‘I wake up in the morning and the first thing I do is check my e-mail; I

start my day off with a ‘good morning’ and a small note from my husband.’’

Future planning. ‘‘We usually would talk about our future plans and what we were

going to do when he was home,’’ stated Carmen. This type of future planning could

help some partners maintain a hopeful attitude and manage uncertainty throughout

long separations (Sahlstein, 2006a). Based on Sigman (1991), future planning could

serve a ‘‘bridging’’ function in relationships that helps partners articulate their

relational history and make viable their relational future. Scholars, moreover,

have suggested recently that future planning is a key form of relational investment

that can increase partners’ relational commitment over time (Goodfriend &

Agnew, 2008).

Openness. Some partners referred to the importance of open interaction during

deployment*this includes discussion of potentially distressing topics. Hannah

described this honesty imperative: ‘‘We have to be really open and honest with

each other for a long-distance relationship to work.’’ Resonating with Sahlstein’s

(2004) finding that geographic separation can, for some partners, promote openness,

Maintenance During Deployment 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Mackenzie said her ‘‘soft-spoken’’ husband becomes more open with her during

deployment separations.

Reassuring safety. Partners also discuss each other’s general well-being. ‘‘The only

thing you want when your spouse is in a dangerous situation,’’ said Elaine, ‘‘is to hear

as often as possible that they are okay.’’

Positivity. Pleasant and upbeat conversation characterizes some spouses’ commu-

nications during deployment. Partners enact positivity through discussion of

relational memories as well as finding humor in their day-to-day experiences.

Goldsmith’s (2004) research of troubles talk supports the value of couples’ humor in

their management of stressful periods.

Faith talk. Similar to the prayer category, some partners’ conversations during

deployment involve religion or spiritual beliefs.

Social-Network Support

Network members often play integral roles during deployment. As Nancy said, ‘‘I

think most people would tell you that you really find who your true friends are

during situations like this; they step up to the plate.’’ Described below are five variants

of social-network maintenance.

Family, peer, and community support. The support received from family, friends,

and community figures (e.g., church members) helps many women maintain a

positive outlook on the deployment. Supportive communication from network

members regarding the separation can be comforting and reinforcing of the women’s

bonds with their mate. Scarlett, for example, said that ‘‘friends and family keep me

motivated and remind me that one day is closer to the next day that [my husband]

and I will be together.’’

Family and peer updates. Carl and Duck (2004) discussed how relationships are

marked by ‘‘rhetorical action,’’ whereby people define relationships based on how

they talk about them. From this view, it makes sense that ‘‘chatting’’ about an absent

partner can be a form of relational maintenance. Consider Mia’s comments:

Family will ask how [he] is doing or say, ‘‘I heard from him today.’’ It helps to know

that other people are connecting with him; makes him feel a little closer than he

really is*like he stopped in with them for a cup of coffee and they are telling me

how he is doing.

Chatting with others about soldiers may not only serve to reify partners’ relationships

(Sigman, 1991) but also to represent what Goldsmith (2004) described as a co-

constructional support process that makes stressful experiences seem more

normative. These more subtle forms of support may be critical, given research

suggesting the high value of ‘‘invisible’’ support forms (Bolger, Zuckerman, &

Kessler, 2000).

16 A. J. Merolla

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Preoccupation. As noted in the focus on self category, worry or stress can become

less dominant when partners can keep busy. Friends and family can be helpful in this

regard. Kacey, for example, said, ‘‘My girlfriends made sure that we hung out at least

once a week. They knew I needed a distraction and time to just have fun.’’ This type of

support, which does not focus specifically on the spousal relationship, seems to make

the deployment separation (and the feelings associated with it) less salient for small

stretches of time. Such respites may be integral to spouses’ functional deployment

management.

Support drawn from children. Some women also described their children’s roles in

deployment management. For Diana, her daughter is ‘‘a constant reminder to me of our

family and how important [my husband] is to me.’’ Wendy said, ‘‘With my son, there’s

someone else to take care of. I don’t focus so much on being alone because the baby

helps me cope with loneliness.’’ And as Sophia said, ‘‘It just helps to have the kids around

because they remind me of him.’’ It appears, then, that children’s presence can be a

positive relational force for separated partners, even if the children are not directly

providing supportive messages or other forms of instrumental support.

Military-facilitated support. Groups organized by the military are another source of

support and stress reduction (Medway et al., 1995). Some women in this study said

talking to others who have ‘‘been through it’’ or are ‘‘in the same shoes’’ can be

helpful because it produces credible advice and a sense of solidarity. Organizations

mentioned in the interviews include the Family Readiness Group (FRG) and Fleet

and Family Support Centers (FFSC). These groups offer helpful information, hold

events, and provide volunteer opportunities.

Factors Influencing Maintenance

The interviews also indicated that spouses’ maintenance throughout deployment is

shaped by many factors. These factors can be external to the partners, such as

military-imposed restrictions, or they can be internal, such as partners’ personal

preferences. Notable external factors affecting partners’ deployment communication

can include restrictions on the timing and content of mediated interactions. Elaine

described how time restrictions interfere with her desire to know about her husband’s

day-to-day experiences:

Most bases in Iraq or Afghanistan for US soldiers have phone centers. The phone

centers allow you to place international calls back home, but the calls cannot last

more than 30 minutes. If you have not talked to your spouse for several days,

30 minutes is not enough time to catch up on the ins and outs of your life and

theirs. This can leave you frustrated and feeling like the calls can be a waste of time.

As a result of such restrictions, Elaine relies more heavily on e-mail than the phone to

communicate with her husband. In addition to time limits, partners such as Jane and

Mia described how military monitoring and security concerns with e-mail and phone

calls restrict what they can discuss with their husbands during deployment. Consider,

for instance, Mia’s comments on the issue of telephone security:

Maintenance During Deployment 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Phone calls are hard due to security reasons. You can’t ask him where he is*othercountries listening in? You can’t ask him what he’s doing. About all you can ask is,‘‘So what’d you have for breakfast this morning?’’ That idea’s sweet, but there’s littlesaid of any value.

Further shaping and challenging some partners’ interaction during deployment is

the nature of communication environments. Service members’ Internet connections,

for instance, are sometimes in locations where others soldiers congregate. This can

affect spouses’ communication, such as webcam interactions. Jacqueline noted this,

saying ‘‘It kind of ruins the conversation when people are walking by and looking at the

computer and waving at the webcam.’’ Jaqueline’s comment resonates with the DoD

Mental Health Advisory Team’s (2007) report indicating lacking personal privacy is of

high or very high concern to about 24�39% of deployed service members.

Despite the challenges that can come with phone or Internet communication,

many of the women said they were thankful for it. Specifically, of the 16 women who

described external restrictions on interaction, 15 of them noted that they appreciate

their interaction opportunities. Celeste, for example, described the significance of

phone calls, despite the unreliable connections. ‘‘We’ve spoken under all kinds of

conditions, where things have beeped and honked and cut off,’’ she said, ‘‘[but] we

don’t care what the conditions; just to hear he’s all right and safe and sound, that’s all

we care about.’’

In addition to external restrictions, internal factors, such as personal preferences,

also affect maintenance. Some women have preferences for certain communication

modes over others due to types of interaction those modes foster for them. Others

described how they have preferences regarding the frequency of interaction with their

husbands. An especially interesting example of personal preference concerns social

support from network members. As Table 1 shows, most women (82%) said they rely

upon family, friend, and peer support to help them manage deployments. Yet some

women described which network members and which types of support are most

helpful. For example, Evelyn said she prefers military-facilitated support over family

support. She said her family members sometimes act in ways that exacerbate negative

feelings she may be experiencing. At family get-togethers, for instance, she said

‘‘everyone would start talking about old times and it would make me miss him more.’’

Evelyn did say, however, that her family was helpful to her in regards to

preoccupation (i.e., taking her mind off of the deployment). Contrast this with

Georgina who typically avoids all forms of social-network support because she

perceives her family and friends as insensitive to her situation due to their

unfamiliarity with military life. Thus, although network members are often

important and indispensible sources of support, they can sometimes say and do

things that are less than helpful during deployments (Sahlstein et al., in press).

Discussion

Military deployment rarely occurs without considerable personal and relational

sacrifice (Bell & Schumm, 1999). Despite the hardship promulgated by deployment,

18 A. J. Merolla

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4

many partners maintain stable and satisfying marriages (DoD Mental Health

Advisory Team, 2007; Karney & Crown, 2007; Wood et al., 1995), which likely

reflects spouses’ resiliency, dedication, and creativity. One of the deficits in military

relationship research, however, according to Karney and Crown, is a lack of

studies exploring partners’ adaptive processes, which are ‘‘all the ways that spouses

interact, communicate, resolve problems, provide support, and understand each

other’’ (p. 24). This study makes a useful contribution to the literature on

deployment adaptation by identifying forms of relational maintenance that partners

enact throughout deployment.

Maintenance forms were coded into the three broad categories of intrapersonal,

mediated partner communication, and social-network support. Although many of

the specific maintenance forms within these categories are consistent with those

identified in existing studies (e.g., Dindia & Baxter, 1987; Sahlstein, 2004, 2006a;

Stafford & Canary, 1991), the typology of maintenance in this study appears to be

among the most extensive situated specifically in the context of deployment

separations. Beyond just the context, however, the present findings are notable for

bringing together, within a single framework, forms of maintenance from across the

maintenance literature. Intrapersonal maintenance forms, for example, ranged from

artifact engagement to positive thinking to imagined interaction. Each of these

activities has been described in separate studies and books as potential forms of

relational maintenance used when partners are physically non-co-present (e.g.,

Gilbertson, Dindia, & Allen, 1998; Honeycutt, 2003; Stafford, 2005). This study

provides specific examples of how these forms of relational activity occur during

deployment, a unique long-distance situation to manage (Sahlstein, 2006b).

Furthermore, while the existing literature has indicated that mediated partner

interaction and support from network members are integral to spouses’ coping

during deployment (Ender, 1995; Figley, 1993; Maguire & Sahlstein, 2009), this study

demonstrates the various manifestations of these interactional forms. In terms of

mediated interaction, this study identifies the diverse channels of communication

that partners utilize in the maintenance process, as well as the topics and styles

characterizing partners’ talk. Based on frequencies, results indicate that important

topics of talk during deployment include partners’ day-to-day experiences as well as

future plans. Results also suggest both avoidance and openness, as well as affectionate

talk are key styles of communication in deployment-period maintenance. In addition

to type or style of communication, fostering a sense of routine in communication was

found to be important to many partners; it could be that the predictability provided

by communication routines helps reduce the uncertainty created by the separation.

This study also shows the multifaceted ways that network members can help

partners maintain their relationships during deployment. Friends and family

members, as well as other military spouses, were found to support partners and

their relationships by providing advice on managing deployment, serving as outlets

for stress, and offering opportunities to talk or think positively about the absent

partner. Although partners likely have individual preferences regarding sources of

Maintenance During Deployment 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4

support, it appears that network members are critical to partners’ management of

deployment.

Identifying these various forms of maintenance, though useful, provides only

partial understanding of the process of deployment adaption. Further, the current

study is not without several limitations. The current results do nevertheless provide

some room for speculation regarding practical applications and recommendations for

future research. The remaining sections address, in turn, potential practical

applications, limitations, and recommendations for continued research.

Practical Applications and Implications

From a communication perspective, one of this study’s more interesting findings

concerns the apparent importance of strategic creation of routine everyday talk

during deployment. This was seen, for example, in the maintenance forms of creating

and keeping communication routines and debriefing talk. The infusing of everyday talk

features, such as informativeness and routineness (Kellermann & Palomares, 2004),

potentially helps partners adapt to deployment separations by creating communica-

tion climates indicative of non-deployment-period interaction. This suggests

deployment adaptation involves partners’ strategic performance of interactional

forms that, in non-deployment contexts, are taken-for-granted or unconsciously

enacted.

Practitioners, then, might consider ways to help military partners construct

deployment separations as more normative, and therefore less crisis-like (Hill, 1949;

Karney & Crown, 2007; Van Breda, 1999). Partners, to whatever extent possible,

might strive for routineness in their communication, using e-mail, webcams, or

letters. Moreover, spouses might benefit from learning at least some details about

soldiers’ daily experiences to foster a sense that they are connected to their partners’

lives. Of course, it should also be noted that just as routine small talk is essential in

relational maintenance, so too is variability of talk (Duck, 1994). Thus, partners may

be best served by balancing small talk and deeper conversation, as overemphasis on

one form of talk could be dissatisfying. Indeed, as reflected in Dindia and Baxter’s

(1987) maintenance category of anti-rituals/spontaneity, occasionally deviating from

routines can be rewarding for partners.

Based on the discussion thus far, one potentially useful way of conceptualizing the

relational maintenance process during deployment is as the interplay between careful

planning and spontaneous creativity. In some cases, spouses may negotiate explicit

agreements regarding issues such as self-disclosure, topic avoidance, and the timing of

interaction. During long-term separations, however, spouses’ deployment manage-

ment likely requires improvisation and creativity in light of unexpected events, which

has also been found in long-distance dating relationships (Sahlstein, 2006a). This

speculation relates to Conville’s (1997) discussion of how Levi-Strauss’ (1966) concepts

of bricoleurs and bricolage operate in relational life. A bricoleur is a resourceful person

who utilizes whatever materials or tools that happen to be available to perform a task;

bricolage is the materials or tools at hand. When it comes to relational maintenance

20 A. J. Merolla

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4

during deployment, spouses, acting as bricoleurs, might at times eschew careful

planning, and instead improvise with whatever resources they have available*memories of happy times, cherished photographs, meaningful spaces, interaction

with children, support from friends.

And just as bricoluers can grow increasingly adept at creatively using everyday

resources to meet their unique situational demands (Conville, 1997), some women in

this study described how their deployment management improved over time, as they

learned what worked best for them. When communication routines are difficult to

establish, partners may keep journals to recreate some of the missing routineness of

interaction. When confronted with long periods of non-contact with their spouse,

partners can attend to their own education, health, or spirituality. When network

members offer support that is unhelpful, partners can seek out the types of individuals

(and support forms) that better align with their needs. Overall, such speculation speaks

to the ways in which geographic separation can alter how partners experience and

maintain their relationships (Le & Agnew, 2001; Sahlstein, 2004; Stafford, 2005).

Limitations and Future Research

Clearly, to understand maintenance during deployment, research will need to do

more than just articulate the various forms of maintenance partners enact. Indeed,

studies will need to demonstrate the effectiveness of the maintenance forms for

meeting partners’ needs. Additionally, because previous studies indicate maintenance

behaviors are most effective when enacted consistently (Canary & Dainton, 2006),

future research should explore how frequently partners typically perform the various

forms of maintenance (and how different performance frequencies relate to well-

being). Some behaviors may even have thresholds of functionality or be subject to

diminished returns. Although it is unlikely that researchers could devise a one-size-

fits-all maintenance repertoire effective for all partners, research can help decipher

trends in maintenance performance in terms of what works well for partners in

certain deployment situations.

Type of deployment may be one of the most important variables differentiating

partners’ situations. A limitation of this study is it did not bring to light maintenance

differences by deployment type. Some interviewees’ partners were deployed to

warzones while others were in less life-threatening environments; deployments to

Iraq and Afghanistan can be especially dangerous (DoD Mental Health Advisory

Team, 2007). Deployment type, for example, might be relevant to the nature of

partners’ communication. When deployment danger escalates, spouses’ needs and

expectations for information could shift. Such forms of maintenance as reassuring

safety might become especially salient in partners’ maintenance when deployment

danger increases and spouses’ interaction decreases in frequency or regularity.

Given the behaviors identified in this study were based on the reports of civilian

women from a convenience sample, it is also plausible that different results would

emerge from larger, random samples, and those including civilian men and men and

women military personnel. Enlisted women, who represent about 15% of US service

Maintenance During Deployment 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4

members (DoD, 2006), might have relational experiences different from those of

enlisted men. Enlisted women, for instance, have higher divorce rates (Karney &

Crown, 2007). It is possible that enlisted women’s higher likelihood for relational

turmoil manifests in unique maintenance performance, though it is unclear precisely

how. Civilian husbands may also have different maintenance propensities, stemming

perhaps from their unclear societal roles. Karney and Crown suggested that civilian

husbands, who represent a relatively small proportion of military spouses, may

receive less community support than civilian wives as a result of role ambiguity.

Researchers can also improve on the current study by exploring the ‘‘totality’’ of

long-distance maintenance (Sahlstein, 2006b). For example, studies can examine how

the different maintenance behaviors interrelate or cluster to address different needs.

Imagined interactions might be used as a way to compensate for partners’ conflict

avoidance, wherein partners suppress conflict by mentally working through it

(Honeycutt, 2003). Additionally, partners who rely heavily on network sources for

support during deployment might report lower engagement of intrapersonal

activities (or vice versa), mirroring perhaps an interior or exterior maintenance

schema. Partners’ maintenance behavior use, especially at the intrapersonal level,

could even reveal temporal orientations, focused upon past, present, or future

relational experiences.

Moreover, future research that includes service members and their civilian spouses

will also be beneficial if it can detect important areas of interdependence in their

communication. Vangelisti and Banski’s (1993) study of debriefing conversations, for

example, showed that when one spouse self-reports more than the other, it negatively

predicts satisfaction. Due to communication restrictions, and their sometimes

unchanging deployment routines, soldiers could feel they have less to report about

their day-to-day experiences than do their partners. By analyzing deployed and non-

deployed partners’ perspectives, researchers can determine the ramifications of

differences in spouses’ maintenance communication. Following the methods of

Sahlstein (2004) and Alberts et al. (2005), studies could collect and analyze recorded

conversations between spouses after the spouses reunite from deployment; this

method could provide especially rich data regarding the experiences of military

partners.

Continued research of spouses’ communication during deployment, especially self-

disclosure, is also relevant to issues of mental health. Bolton, Glenn, Orsillo, Roemer,

and Litz (2003) found that civilian partners’ reactions to soldiers’ self-disclosure

during a peacekeeping mission predicted soldiers’ onset of post-traumatic stress

disorder (PTSD). When partners responded in a positive and supportive manner to

soldiers’ self-disclosures, incidence of PTSD was lower. This indicates the potentially

harmful consequences of ‘‘bottling up’’ stress, or over-emphasizing certain forms of

talk that avoid self-disclosure.

This study, in sum, described some of the ways that spouses maintain their

relationships and adapt to separation throughout deployment. This work can therefore

help guide continued research examining spousal and family communication practices

during deployment and other situations involving long-term geographic separation.

22 A. J. Merolla

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4

References

Alberts, J. K., Yoshimura, C. G., Rabby, M., & Loschiavo, R. (2005). Mapping the topography of

couples’ daily conversation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 299�322.

Altman, I. (1993). Dialectics, physical environments, and personal relationships. Communication

Monographs, 60, 26�34.

Aylor, B. (2003). Maintaining long-distance relationships. In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.),

Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural

variations (pp. 127�140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ballard-Reisch, D. S., Weigel, D. J., & Zaguidoulline, M. (1999). Relational maintenance behaviors,

marital satisfaction, and commitment in Tatar, Russian, and mixed Russian/Tatar marriages:

An exploratory analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 20, 677�697.

Bell, D. B., & Schumm, W. R. (1999). Family adaptation to deployments. In P. McClure (Ed.),

Pathways to the future: A review of military family research (pp. 109�131). Scranton, PA:

Military Family Institute of Marywood University.

Bell, D. B., Schumm, W. R., Knott, B., & Ender, M. G. (1999). The desert fax: A research note on

calling home from Somalia. Armed Forces & Society, 25, 509�521.

Berg, B. L. (1995). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (2nd ed). Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.

Bolger, N., Zuckerman, A., & Kessler, R. C. (2000). Invisible support and adjustment to stress.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 953�961.

Bolton, E. E., Glenn, D. M., Orsillo, S., Roemer, L., & Litz, B. T. (2003). The relationship between

self-disclosure and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder in peacekeepers deployed to

Somalia. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16, 203�210.

Boulding, E. (1950). Family adjustments to war separation and reunion. Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 272, 59�67.

Burrell, L. M., Adams, G. A., Durand, D. B., & Castro, C. A. (2006). The impact of military lifestyle

demands on well-being, Army, and family outcomes. Armed Forces and Society, 33, 43�58.

Busuttil, W., & Busuttil, A. (2001). Psychological effects on families subjected to enforced and

prolonged separations generated under life threatening situations. Sexual and Relationship

Therapy, 16, 207�228.

Canary, D. J., & Dainton, M. (2006). Maintaining relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 727�743). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Canary, D. J., Stafford, L., Hause, K. S., & Wallace, L. A. (1993). An inductive analysis of relational

maintenance strategies: Comparisons among lovers, relatives, friends, and others. Commu-

nication Research Reports, 10, 5�14.

Canary, D. J., Stafford, L., & Semic, B. A. (2002). A panel study of the associations between

maintenance strategies and relational characteristics. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64,

395�406.

Carl, W. J., & Duck, S. (2004). How to do things with relationships . . . and how relationships do

things with us. Communication Yearbook, 28, 1�36.

Congressional Budget Office. (2008, August). Contractors’ support of US Operations in Iraq.

Retrieved November 16, 2009, from http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9688/08-12-

IraqContractors.pdf

Conville, R. L. (1997). Between spearheads: Bricolage and relationships. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 14, 373�386.

Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2001). A relational uncertainty analysis of jealousy, trust, and

maintenance in long-distance versus geographically-close relationships. Communication

Quarterly, 49, 172�188.

Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2002). Patterns of communication channel use in the maintenance of

long-distance relationships. Communication Research Reports, 19, 118�129.

Maintenance During Deployment 23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Dainton, M. (1998). Everyday interaction in marital relationships: Variations in relative importance

and event duration. Communication Reports, 11, 101�109.

Dainton, M., & Stafford, L. (1993). Routine maintenance behaviors: A comparison of relationship

type, partner similarity and sex differences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10,

255�271.

Department of Defense. (2006). Population representation of the military services: Fiscal Year 2004.

Retrieved November 16, 2009, from http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/poprep2004/

Department of Defense Mental Health Advisory Board. (2007). Mental Health Advisory Team

(MHAT) IV Operation Iraqi Freedom 05�07: Final report. Retrieved November 16, 2009, from

http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/reports/mhat/mhat_iv/MHAT_IV_Report_17NOV06.

pdf

Dindia, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing marital relationships.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 143�158.

Drummet, A. R., Coleman, M., & Cable, S. (2003). Military families under stress: Implications for

family life education. Family Relations, 52, 279�287.

Duck, S. (1994). Meaningful relationships: Talking, sense, and relating. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ender, M. G. (1995). G.I. phone home: The use of telecommunications by the soldiers of Operation

Just Cause. Armed Forces & Society, 21, 435�453.

Felmlee, D. H. (2003). Interaction is social networks. In J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of social

psychology (pp. 309�409). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

Figley, C. (1993). Coping with stressors on the home front. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 51�71.

Gilbertson, D. J., Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1998). Relational continuity constructional units and the

maintenance of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 774�790.

Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Basic.

Goldsmith, D. J. (2004). Communicating social support. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodfriend, W., & Agnew, C. R. (2008). Sunken costs and desired plans: Examining different types

of investments in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1639�1652.

Haas, S. M. (2002). Social support as relationship maintenance in gay male couples coping with

HIV or AIDS. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 87�111.

Hill, R. (1949). Families under stress: Adjustment to crises of war separation and reunion. New York:

Harper & Brothers.

Honeycutt, J. M. (2003). Imagined interactions: Daydreams about communication. Cresskill, NJ:

Hampton.

Kain, D. L. (2004). Owning significance: The critical incident technique in research. In K. deMarrais

& S. D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social

sciences (pp. 69�85). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Karney, B. R., & Crown, J. S. (2007). Families under stress: An assessment of data, theory, and research

on marriage and divorce. Rand National Defense Research Institute. Retrieved November 16,

2009, from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG599.pdf

Keller, R. T., Greenberg, N., Bobo, W. V., Roberts, P., Jones, N., & Orman, D. T. (2005). Soldier peer

mentoring care and support: Bringing psychological awareness to the front. Military

Medicine, 170, 355�361.

Kellermann, K., & Palomares, N. A. (2004). Topical profiling: Emergent, co-occuring, and

relationally defining topics in talk. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 308�337.

Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Need fulfillment and emotional experience in interdependent

romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 423�440.

Levi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lohmann, A., Arriaga, X. B., & Goodfriend, W. (2003). Close relationships and placemaking: Do

objects in a couple’s home reflect couplehood? Personal Relationships, 10, 437�449.

24 A. J. Merolla

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Maguire, K. C., & Sahlstein, E. M. (2009, May). Battle-fatigue at home: An in-depth examination of

how Army wives use communication to cope with stress throughout a wartime deployment.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of International Communication Association,

Chicago.

McCubbin, H. I. (1979). Integrating coping behavior in family stress theory. Journal of Marriage and

the Family, 41, 237�244.

McCubbin, H. I., Dahl, B. B., Lester, G. R., Benson, D., & Robertson, M. L. (1976). Coping

repertoires of families adapting to prolonged war-induced separations. Journal of Marriage

and Family, 38, 461�471.

McCubbin, H. I., McCubbin, M. A., Thompson, A. I., Han, S., & Allen, C. T. (1997). Families under

stress: What makes them resilient. Journal of Family and Consumer Science, 89, 2�11.

McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1982). Family adaptation to crises. In H. I. McCubbin, A. E.

Cauble, & J. M. Patterson (Eds.), Family stress, coping and social support (pp. 26�47).

Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Medway, F. J., Davis, K. E., Cafferty, T. P., Chappell, K. D., & O’Hearn, R. E. (1995). Family

disruption and adult attachment correlates of spouse and child reactions to separation

and reunion due to Operation Desert Storm. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14,

97�118.

Newby, J. H., McCarroll, J. E., Ursano, R. J., Zizhong, F., Shigemura, J., & Tucker-Harris, Y. (2005).

Positive and negative consequences of a military deployment. Military Medicine, 170, 815�819.

Rusbult, C. E., Van Lange, P. A. M., Wildschut, T., Yovetich, N. A., & Verette, J. (2000). Perceived

superiority in relationships: Why it exists and persists. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 79, 521�545.

Sahlstein, E. M. (2004). Relating at a distance: Negotiating being together and being apart in long-

distance relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 689�710.

Sahlstein, E. (2006a). Making plans: Praxis strategies for negotiating uncertainty-certainty in long-

distance relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 70, 147�165.

Sahlstein, E. (2006b). The trouble with distance. In D. C. Kirkpatrick, S. D. Duck, & M. K. Foley

(Eds.), Relating difficulty: The process of constructing and managing difficult relationships (pp.

119�140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sahlstein, E., Maguire, K., & Timmerman, L. (in press). Contradictions contextualized by wartime

deployment: The wives’ perspective revealed through relational dialectics. Communication

Monographs.

Sigman, S. J. (1991). Handling the discontinuous aspects of continuing social relationships: Toward

research on the persistence of social forms. Communication Theory, 1, 106�127.

Stafford, L. (2003). Maintaining romantic relationships: Summary and analysis of one research

program. In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships through

communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural variations (pp. 51�78). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

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

Erlbaum.

Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender,

and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 217�242.

Stafford, L., Dainton, M., & Haas, S. M. (2000). Measuring routine and strategic relational

maintenance: Scale revision, sex versus gender roles, and the prediction of relational

characteristics. Communication Monographs, 67, 306�323.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.

Van Breda, A. D. (1999). Developing resilience to routine separations: An occupational social work

intervention. Families in Society, 80, 597�605.

Maintenance During Deployment 25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Vangelisti, A. L., & Banski, M. A. (1993). Couples’ debriefing conversations: The impact of gender,

occupation, and demographic characteristics. Family Relations, 42, 149�157.

Vogl-Bauer, S., Kalbfleisch, P. J., & Beatty, M. J. (1999). Perceived equity, satisfaction, and relational

maintenance strategies in parent-adolescent dyads. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 27�49.

Vormbrock, J. K. (1993). Attachment theory as applied to wartime and job-related marital

separation. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 122�144.

Wood, S., Scarville, J., & Gravino, K. S. (1995). Waiting wives: Separation and reunion among Army

wives. Armed Forces & Society, 21, 217�236.

26 A. J. Merolla

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

3:39

10

Oct

ober

201

4