top of page

Psychological Encyclopedia

Jealousy in Long-Distance Relationships: Trust, Uncertainty, and Digital Cues

Sep 27
20 min read

Updated: 3 days ago

Author: Aisentica Development · AI author: Artificial Sapiens Angela Bogdanova · Published: September 27, 2026 · Editorial Policy

AI-authored educational article. Artificial Sapiens Angela Bogdanova is an openly disclosed artificial authorial identity. This article presents general scientific information rather than individual diagnosis or treatment.


Jealousy in a long-distance relationship can feel unusually convincing because much of the relationship is interpreted through incomplete information: a delayed reply, a changed routine, a new friend mentioned briefly on a call, a social-media interaction with no surrounding context, or a night out that one partner cannot directly observe. Distance can change the cues that trigger jealousy, but it does not make jealousy inevitable, and research does not support treating long-distance relationships as inherently less trusting or less healthy than geographically close relationships.


The evidence points to a more precise explanation. Romantic jealousy is a response to a perceived threat to a valued relationship. In long-distance relationships, that threat can be amplified by relational uncertainty, limited access to context, reliance on digital communication, and individual differences such as attachment anxiety. At the same time, many long-distance couples report strong relationship quality, commitment, intimacy, and trust. Large comparative studies have found few disadvantages associated with distance itself, and some have found higher reported relationship quality or dedication among long-distance couples. Kelmer and colleagues’ nationally representative study and Dargie and colleagues’ comparison of long-distance and geographically close couples both challenge the assumption that physical distance is automatically a relationship deficit.


The central problem is therefore not simply miles. It is how partners interpret uncertainty, how they communicate when information is missing, how they use digital tools, how reliably they keep agreements, and whether attempts to reduce jealousy preserve autonomy or slide into surveillance and control.


The short answer: why can jealousy feel stronger at a distance?


Long-distance jealousy often becomes intense when a meaningful relationship threat is combined with missing context. You may know that your partner is at a party but not see the ordinary social setting around them. You may notice that they were active online without replying to you. You may see a photo with someone you do not know, receive a shorter message than usual, or hear about a new coworker after the friendship has already developed. The mind then has to interpret fragments.


Relational uncertainty is one of the strongest research-based concepts for understanding this process. In romantic relationships generally, uncertainty about the relationship, the partner, or one’s own place in the relationship has been linked with cognitive and emotional jealousy. Knobloch, Solomon, and Cruz found relational uncertainty strongly tied to cognitive jealousy, while attachment anxiety showed a direct positive association with emotional jealousy. Longitudinal work by Theiss and Solomon likewise examined relational uncertainty as an antecedent of jealousy experiences.


A classic study designed specifically around long-distance relationships is especially relevant. Dainton and Aylor studied 311 people in long-distance and geographically close relationships. Relational uncertainty was positively associated with cognitive and emotional jealousy and negatively associated with trust and several relationship-maintenance behaviors. Importantly, geographically close partners were not simply more certain than every long-distance group. Long-distance participants who still had some face-to-face contact were more certain than those whose relationships had no face-to-face interaction. That pattern is consistent with the idea that access to relational context matters more than distance as a crude category.


Jealousy is an emotion, not a diagnosis


Romantic jealousy is a common human emotional response to a perceived rival, possible loss, or threat to a valued bond. It can involve feelings, thoughts, bodily arousal, attention to threat, and behavior. Researchers do not measure it in one universally agreed way. A 2026 systematic review by Papa and colleagues identified 21 jealousy instruments across 32 studies and emphasized continuing differences in how jealousy is conceptualized and measured.


That matters in long-distance relationships because feeling jealous after an ambiguous event does not establish a mental disorder, a personality defect, or proof that a partner is unfaithful. It is useful to separate the emotion from the interpretation and from the behavior that follows. Feeling alarmed is one event. Concluding that an unanswered message proves betrayal is another. Asking for context is a behavior. Secretly accessing a partner’s accounts is a different behavior with different ethical and safety implications.


For the broader definition and research on romantic jealousy, see What Is Jealousy in a Relationship? Meaning, Triggers, and What Research Shows. For mechanisms such as threat, comparison, attachment, and past experience, see What Causes Jealousy in Relationships? Threat, Attachment, Comparison, and Past Experience.


Long-distance relationships are not inherently less trusting


Popular advice often starts from the premise that distance weakens relationships and therefore naturally produces mistrust. Comparative research gives a more complicated picture.


In a nationally representative sample of 870 people, Kelmer, Rhoades, Stanley, and Markman found that participants in long-distance relationships generally reported higher relationship quality on several measures, higher dedication, and lower felt constraint than participants in geographically close relationships. The groups were nevertheless similarly likely to have broken up by follow-up. The study does not prove that distance improves relationships; it shows that long-distance status itself should not be treated as evidence of poor quality or instability.


Likewise, Dargie and colleagues compared 717 people in long-distance dating relationships with 425 in geographically close relationships and found few differences between the relationship types. Individual and relationship characteristics predicted quality more clearly than distance alone.


Communication can also adapt to separation. In a diary study, Jiang and Hancock found that long-distance partners used patterns of self-disclosure and idealized partner perceptions that could support intimacy across communication media. The effects varied with properties of the medium, including synchronicity and the number of cues available. This does not mean idealization is always beneficial or that every long-distance couple communicates better. It shows that people actively adapt to the communication environment rather than simply losing intimacy because they are apart.


What distance actually changes: access to context


Physical proximity supplies enormous amounts of low-level information that partners may barely notice: how a workday went, who was at dinner, how a friend behaves around the partner, whether a change in tone followed exhaustion or conflict, and whether an unfamiliar name is part of an ordinary social circle. Long-distance partners often receive less of this ambient context and more deliberately selected information.


That creates a psychological asymmetry. A partner may have a rich, continuous understanding of their own day while the other receives a few messages, a short call, and isolated digital traces. The person with less context can then overestimate how much those traces reveal. A green activity indicator, a new follower, a tagged photograph, or a five-hour gap in messaging can become a highly salient clue even though it is informationally weak.


This is one reason jealousy in long-distance relationships is often better understood as a problem of threat interpretation under uncertainty than as a simple problem of insufficient love. The response becomes more useful when the couple asks, “What information is missing, what agreement matters here, and what evidence do we actually have?” rather than “Who is the jealous one?”


Digital cues can become relationship cues


Long-distance relationships depend heavily on mediated communication, so digital behavior can carry more relational meaning. Messaging frequency, read receipts, video-call routines, public relationship signals, social-media interactions, and location-sharing practices can become part of how partners estimate availability, involvement, and reliability.


Research has documented this link for years. In a survey of 272 predominantly young adult Facebook users, Billedo, Kerkhof, and Finkenauer found that long-distance participants reported more social-network relationship-maintenance behavior, more partner surveillance through the platform, and higher social-network jealousy than geographically close participants. Because the study was observational, it does not establish that distance caused surveillance or jealousy. It does show that digital platforms can become especially important spaces for maintaining and evaluating a geographically separated relationship.


A systematic review by Tandon, Dhir, and Mäntymäki synthesized 45 empirical studies on social-media-induced jealousy. The literature identified multiple antecedents, including characteristics of the individual, partner, rival, and platform itself. The review also highlighted methodological limitations and a need for stronger temporal and cross-cultural research. In other words, “social media causes jealousy” is too simple; platform affordances interact with relationship meaning and personal vulnerabilities.



A 2026 experiment: private messaging can trigger jealousy when context is limited


One of the newest studies is unusually relevant because it directly tested a digital jealousy trigger rather than relying only on general social-media use. Yang and colleagues conducted two experiments using instant-messaging scenarios. The first included 131 college students in long-distance relationships. The second included 144 participants and compared long-distance with geographically close dating relationships.


Across the studies, deeper self-disclosure between a participant’s romantic partner and a third party produced higher cognitive and emotional jealousy. In the second experiment, long-distance participants reported more jealousy than geographically close participants when the partner-to-third-party disclosure was high; when disclosure was low, the relationship groups did not significantly differ. The authors interpreted the interaction through limited contextual information and the “hyperperception” of digital cues.


This is stronger evidence for a specific causal cue than a cross-sectional correlation, but it is still a narrow experimental model. The samples were relatively small, college-based, and culturally specific. It supports the claim that some ambiguous or intimate digital exchanges can be more jealousy-provoking under distance; it does not establish that long-distance partners are generally more jealous.


Delayed replies: why silence can acquire too much meaning


A delayed reply is among the most common long-distance triggers because the communication channel is often the main route to connection. The same two-hour gap can mean “busy meeting,” “phone battery died,” “out with friends,” “needs some quiet,” “angry,” or “avoiding me.” Jealousy becomes more likely when the mind treats one interpretation as if it were observed fact.


A useful distinction is between a communication event and a relationship pattern. One late response is weak evidence. A recurring pattern of disappearing after an agreed check-in, giving contradictory explanations, or repeatedly violating an explicit agreement deserves a different conversation. Trust does not require ignoring patterns. It requires calibrating confidence to evidence, reliability, context, and the agreements that actually exist.


This is also why rigid response-time rules can backfire. If a couple turns “reply when reasonably able” into “prove loyalty by answering immediately,” messaging becomes a monitoring system. A sustainable agreement should account for work, sleep, time zones, social life, emergencies, and individual need for uninterrupted attention.


Trust at a distance is built from reliability, not omniscience


Trust is not knowing everything a partner is doing. Contemporary measurement work still supports predictability, dependability, and faith as core dimensions of romantic trust. In two studies totaling more than 1,300 participants, Camanto and Campbell found broad support for those dimensions across newer and longer-term relationships.


In a long-distance relationship, predictability might mean that a partner’s communication pattern broadly matches what they say their schedule will allow. Dependability might mean they follow through on visits, calls, practical commitments, and agreed boundaries. Faith involves extending trust into situations where complete verification is impossible. None of these requires naive certainty. Trust can coexist with questions, boundaries, and the revision of expectations when evidence changes.



Attachment can shape jealousy, but attachment is not destiny


Jealousy-specific research has repeatedly linked attachment anxiety with greater sensitivity to romantic threat. Sharpsteen and Kirkpatrick found attachment-style differences in romantic jealousy, while Knobloch and colleagues reported a direct positive association between attachment anxiety and emotional jealousy in their dating sample.


At a distance, attachment-related threat sensitivity may become especially noticeable because ordinary reassurance is less embodied and less continuous. There may be fewer spontaneous moments of contact, fewer shared environments, and more time for ambiguous cues to be interpreted before partners speak. Yet attachment variables are tendencies, not verdicts. They do not determine that a person will become controlling, and they do not make every concern irrational.


A long-distance jealousy article should also avoid turning attachment into a catch-all explanation. Sometimes the relevant cause is simply a violated agreement, inconsistent communication, concealed information, or a mismatch in expectations. For jealousy-specific attachment evidence, see Jealousy and Attachment Styles: What Research Shows and Anxious Attachment and Jealousy: Threat Sensitivity, Reassurance, and Trust.


Reassurance can help, but endless proof is not the same as trust


Reassurance is an ordinary part of intimate relationships. A partner saying “I love you,” clarifying who someone is, explaining an unexpected schedule change, or confirming a shared plan can reduce uncertainty and communicate care. Long-distance relationships often need more deliberate reassurance because partners cannot rely as much on physical presence and everyday observation.


The function of reassurance matters. Helpful reassurance adds context and then allows the relationship to continue. A different pattern appears when the same uncertainty repeatedly returns unchanged and each answer creates a demand for stronger evidence: another screenshot, another timeline, another proof of location, another account inspection. That does not mean the behavior is automatically a clinical compulsion. It means the couple may be caught in a certainty-seeking cycle that ordinary reassurance cannot satisfy.


A stronger question than “How much reassurance is enough?” is “What is the reassurance trying to solve?” If the problem is missing context, direct information may help. If the problem is an actual broken agreement, accountability and changed behavior matter more than soothing words. If the problem is fear that remains high despite consistent evidence, the person may need ways to tolerate uncertainty without converting the partner into a permanent verification system.


Communication that reduces uncertainty without turning into interrogation


Research on jealousy and relational maintenance suggests that constructive communication and relationship-maintenance behavior can matter. In a study of 192 people in romantic relationships, Kennedy-Lightsey found that perceived partner maintenance behaviors were negatively associated with cognitive jealousy and relationship uncertainty. Relationship uncertainty also helped explain associations between maintenance and constructive jealousy responses. The study was correlational, so it does not prove that a particular communication technique prevents jealousy, but it supports a relational-maintenance framework.


In practice, useful long-distance communication often does four things. It names the specific cue instead of making a global accusation. It separates what is known from what is inferred. It asks for relevant context rather than unlimited access. And it turns repeated friction into an explicit agreement that both partners can realistically keep.


Describe the event before interpreting it


“We planned to call at nine and I did not hear from you until the next morning” gives the couple something concrete to discuss. “You obviously did not care where I was” adds a motive that has not yet been established. Precision lowers the number of claims the other person must defend and makes it easier to determine whether the issue is communication, reliability, jealousy, or a boundary violation.


Ask for context, not a confession


Questions can be direct without being prosecutorial: “I saw the photo and realized I do not know who that person is. Can you tell me about them?” The goal is information. Repeated cross-examination, trick questions, or changing standards of proof can transform a conversation into a loyalty test.


Create predictable contact without demanding constant access


Some couples benefit from planned calls, shared expectations about busy periods, and simple heads-up messages when a routine changes. The point is not to report every movement. Predictability can reduce avoidable ambiguity while leaving room for work, friendships, sleep, and individual life.


Discuss the meaning of digital behavior explicitly


Partners often assume that read receipts, online status, social-media interactions, public couple photos, following ex-partners, or location sharing mean the same thing to both people. They may not. An explicit conversation is usually more informative than silently treating a platform feature as a relationship rule.


Privacy, transparency, and surveillance are different


Long-distance couples sometimes try to solve uncertainty by increasing digital visibility. That can range from ordinary consensual transparency to intrusive surveillance. The difference is not the technology alone; it is the purpose, consent, voluntariness, scope, reversibility, and consequences of saying no.


Privacy is a person’s boundary around information, communication, space, or activity. Secrecy is intentional withholding of information that another person reasonably expects under the relationship’s agreements. Deception is creating or maintaining a false belief. Transparency is voluntary sharing that helps partners coordinate and understand each other. Surveillance involves monitoring another person’s behavior, communications, or location, especially when access is covert, demanded, or difficult to refuse. These concepts should not be used interchangeably.


Electronic partner surveillance has its own research literature. In a dyadic study of 136 dating couples, Litt and Rodriguez found that a person’s own electronic surveillance was associated with lower trust, higher jealousy, and more negative relationship behavior. The design was cross-sectional, so the study cannot tell us whether surveillance reduced trust, low trust prompted surveillance, or both processes reinforced each other.


More recent longitudinal evidence also links digital jealousy and surveillance. In a two-year study of 322 young adults, Métellus and colleagues found that social-media jealousy was associated with more electronic partner surveillance and lower relationship satisfaction one year later. This supports concern about monitoring cycles while still falling short of proving a single causal pathway for every couple.



Location sharing can be convenient without becoming proof of loyalty


Consensual location sharing can serve practical purposes in long-distance relationships: travel coordination, meeting at an airport, safety during a trip, or simply sharing a journey. The same feature changes meaning when it becomes a condition for avoiding accusations, when one partner is expected to explain every location deviation, or when revoking access triggers threats or punishment.


A useful test is whether both partners can genuinely say no or change the arrangement. Consent to location access should be specific and revisable. “We both like using this while traveling” is different from “If you turn it off, you must be hiding something.” Continuous access is not a scientific measure of trustworthiness, and a map cannot tell a partner what a social interaction means.


What to do when jealousy spikes


The most useful response depends on what triggered the jealousy. The following sequence is a practical framework derived from the evidence on uncertainty, trust, digital jealousy, and surveillance rather than a disorder-specific treatment protocol.


1. Identify the actual cue


Name the smallest observable event: a missed call, an unfamiliar person in a photo, a partner mentioning an ex, a change in the usual routine, or a message exchange that appeared unusually intimate. Avoid starting with a conclusion such as “They are losing interest.”


2. Separate evidence from possibility


Ask what the cue establishes, what it merely makes possible, and what information is absent. A late reply establishes that a reply was late. It does not by itself establish why. A pattern of contradictory explanations provides more evidence than a single ambiguous event.


3. Notice the urge before acting on it


Jealousy can create an urgent desire to check, message repeatedly, search social media, ask a friend to investigate, or demand location access. An urge is information about distress; it is not an instruction. Delaying a monitoring behavior long enough to choose a direct conversation can prevent an emotional reaction from becoming a privacy violation.


4. Ask for the amount of information the situation actually requires


A specific explanation may be enough. If the issue repeats, the couple may need a clearer agreement. Unlimited proof usually solves a different problem: the wish for certainty. Relationships cannot provide complete certainty, whether partners live together or thousands of miles apart.


5. Update your conclusion when evidence changes


Trust should be capable of learning. If a partner repeatedly follows through, that consistency deserves weight. If they repeatedly violate explicit agreements, that pattern also deserves weight. “Do not be jealous” is poor advice when it means refusing to revise beliefs in either direction.


When your partner goes out, makes new friends, or becomes busier


Long-distance relationships often continue while each person builds a local life. New friends, coworkers, classes, hobbies, travel, and social events are ordinary. They can still trigger jealousy because one partner is encountering people and environments the other does not know.


The goal is not to eliminate independent social life. A durable long-distance relationship needs room for both partners to have relationships, routines, and identities outside the couple. What helps is sufficient relational context: knowing the important people in each other’s lives, hearing about plans in an ordinary rather than defensive way, and having shared agreements about behaviors that actually matter to the relationship.


A new friendship is not equivalent to infidelity. At the same time, “you are just jealous” should not be used to dismiss a clearly stated agreement. The relevant questions are whether a boundary exists, whether both partners understood it, whether behavior violated it, and whether the response respects autonomy and safety.


Jealousy about an ex at a distance


Ex-partners can become especially salient online because social media preserves old photos, follows, comments, mutual friends, and visible interactions. Long distance can make those traces feel more informative than they are because the current partner has less offline context. The same principle applies: distinguish a historical digital trace from current contact, current contact from concealed contact, and concealed contact from an agreed boundary violation.


If the primary concern is a partner’s past rather than a current long-distance cue, that belongs to the separate retroactive-jealousy intent. This article remains focused on how geographical separation, uncertainty, communication, and digital information shape current relationship jealousy.


When mistrust is responding to real inconsistencies


Not every jealous reaction is a false alarm. A partner may actually be inconsistent, deceptive, or repeatedly unreliable. The appropriate response is not to force yourself to feel secure while ignoring evidence. Trust is partly built from observed dependability; when dependability changes, confidence can reasonably change too.


Look for patterns rather than isolated anomalies. Are agreed calls repeatedly abandoned without explanation? Do stories change in material ways? Is information intentionally concealed that the couple has explicitly agreed to disclose? Are boundaries mutually understood, or is one person inventing them after the fact? Does the partner acknowledge a breach and alter behavior, or merely demand that the other stop asking?


Jealousy, control, and safety


Jealousy can be associated with controlling behavior and intimate partner violence, but jealousy is not a sufficient causal explanation for violence and never excuses it. A mixed-methods systematic review by Pichon and colleagues found a consistent association among real or suspected infidelity, romantic jealousy, and intimate partner violence across studies from multiple countries. The review also emphasized broader relational and social mechanisms rather than treating jealousy as a single cause.


Distance does not make coercive behavior harmless because it occurs through a phone. Warning signs include forced password access, covert account entry, demands for continuous location tracking, pressure to stay on video to prove where someone is, repeated threats, harassment of friends, stalking, isolation from local relationships, impersonation, nonconsensual access to devices, or retaliation when monitoring is refused.


When threats, stalking, coercive control, violence, or severe behavioral escalation are present, the problem belongs in a safety frame rather than an ordinary jealousy-management conversation. The priority becomes reducing risk and obtaining appropriate local support, not providing more proof to satisfy surveillance.


When professional help may be useful


Jealousy itself is not a diagnosis, and ordinary long-distance jealousy does not require clinical treatment. Professional support may nevertheless be useful when jealousy causes persistent distress, dominates daily attention, repeatedly damages communication, contributes to monitoring or controlling behavior, or becomes entangled with broader anxiety, depression, trauma-related symptoms, obsessive thinking, substance use, or another mental-health concern.


Couples therapy may be useful when the main problem is a recurring relationship process: unclear agreements, conflict around communication, mismatched expectations, or repeated attempts to reduce uncertainty that leave both partners more distressed. Individual therapy may be more appropriate when the distress is primarily one person’s persistent pattern or when a clinician needs to assess symptoms beyond relationship jealousy. Specific disorders require disorder-specific assessment and treatment; a long-distance jealousy label should not substitute for diagnosis.


Couples work is not a substitute for safety planning when coercion, threats, stalking, or violence are present. In those situations, the suitability of joint sessions requires careful professional judgment.


What the evidence does—and does not—show


The scientific literature on long-distance relationships is substantial enough to reject simple stereotypes, but long-distance jealousy remains a narrower research area. Several directly relevant studies are older, many use young-adult or student samples, and a meaningful part of the digital-jealousy literature is cross-sectional. That limits causal conclusions.


The strongest current synthesis is therefore modest but useful. Distance itself does not reliably imply poor trust or poor relationship quality. Relational uncertainty is associated with jealousy and lower trust. Digital platforms can provide both connection and ambiguous threat cues. Long-distance partners may use social media more for relationship maintenance and, in some samples, more for partner surveillance. New experimental work suggests that intimate partner-to-third-party messaging can evoke stronger jealousy under long-distance conditions when contextual information is limited. Longitudinal digital research links social-media jealousy and electronic surveillance with poorer later relationship satisfaction, but no single study establishes one universal pathway.


That evidence supports interventions aimed at the process: better context, realistic communication agreements, reliable follow-through, direct questions, tolerance of unavoidable uncertainty, and clear boundaries around digital access. It does not support treating long-distance partners as inherently jealous or recommending surveillance as a trust strategy.


FAQ


Is jealousy normal in a long-distance relationship?


Yes. Jealousy can occur in any romantic relationship and can be understandable when a valued bond feels threatened. Its presence does not by itself indicate a disorder or an unhealthy relationship. What matters is the trigger, the interpretation, the intensity and persistence of the response, and what the person does with it.


Are long-distance relationships less trusting than geographically close relationships?


Not as a general rule. Comparative studies have found that long-distance couples can report relationship quality, commitment, intimacy, and trust comparable to or sometimes higher than geographically close couples. Relationship characteristics and communication processes matter more than treating distance as a simple deficit.


Why do I get jealous when my long-distance partner does not reply?


A delayed reply creates ambiguity in the channel that carries much of the relationship. If the mind interprets missing information as threat, jealousy can rise quickly. The useful task is to distinguish the observable event from the story attached to it and to decide whether there is a one-off ambiguity or a recurring reliability problem.


Does social media make long-distance jealousy worse?


It can provide jealousy-provoking cues, but the relationship is not simply “more social media equals more jealousy.” A systematic review found that social-media jealousy has multiple antecedents involving the user, partner, rival, and platform. Long-distance couples may rely more heavily on digital spaces, making those cues more relationally important.


Should long-distance couples share passwords?


Password sharing is not a requirement for trust. Some couples voluntarily share access for practical reasons, while others maintain separate accounts. A request becomes concerning when access is coerced, demanded as proof of innocence, used for covert monitoring, or impossible to withdraw without punishment.


Is location sharing good for trust in a long-distance relationship?


It can be useful for convenience or safety when both partners freely want it. Continuous tracking is not evidence of trustworthiness and should not be treated as a loyalty test. Consent, purpose, scope, and the ability to stop sharing matter.


How much reassurance is healthy?


There is no universal number. Reassurance is useful when it clarifies context, communicates care, and allows the couple to move forward. When reassurance repeatedly produces only brief relief and leads to escalating demands for certainty, the pattern itself deserves attention.


Does jealousy mean my partner is cheating?


No. Jealousy is a response to perceived threat, not evidence that the threat is real. Evaluate concrete behavior, consistency, agreements, and context. If there is actual evidence of infidelity, that becomes a betrayal-recovery question rather than a general jealousy question.


How do I stop overthinking when my partner goes out?


Start by naming what you actually know, what you are imagining, and what agreement is relevant. Avoid turning uncertainty into surveillance. If you need context, ask directly. If the same fear returns despite consistent evidence, work on tolerating uncertainty and examine whether reassurance or checking has become part of a repeating cycle.


When is long-distance jealousy a red flag?


The clearest red flags concern behavior and safety: threats, stalking, coercion, forced passwords, continuous tracking demands, isolation from friends, punishment for normal autonomy, violence, or severe escalation. Persistent distress and relationship impairment can also justify professional support even when no safety threat is present.


Related Articles



References


Billedo, C. J., Kerkhof, P., & Finkenauer, C. (2015). The use of social networking sites for relationship maintenance in long-distance and geographically close romantic relationships. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(3), 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0469


Camanto, O. J., & Campbell, L. (2025). Trust in close relationships revisited. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 42(9), 2516–2544. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075251346105


Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2001). A relational uncertainty analysis of jealousy, trust, and maintenance in long-distance versus geographically close relationships. Communication Quarterly, 49(2), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370109385624


Dargie, E., Blair, K. L., Goldfinger, C., & Pukall, C. F. (2015). Go long! Predictors of positive relationship outcomes in long-distance dating relationships. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 41(2), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2013.864367


Jiang, L. C., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Absence makes the communication grow fonder: Geographic separation, interpersonal media, and intimacy in dating relationships. Journal of Communication, 63(3), 556–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12029


Kelmer, G., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S., & Markman, H. J. (2013). Relationship quality, commitment, and stability in long-distance relationships. Family Process, 52(2), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01418.x


Kennedy-Lightsey, C. D. (2018). Cognitive jealousy and constructive communication: The role of perceived partner maintenance and uncertainty. Communication Reports, 31(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2017.1423094


Knobloch, L. K., Solomon, D. H., & Cruz, M. G. (2001). The role of relationship development and attachment in the experience of romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships, 8(2), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2001.tb00036.x


Litt, D. M., & Rodriguez, L. M. (2022). A dyadic examination of interpersonal electronic surveillance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 25(8), 489–495. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2021.0351


Métellus, S., Vaillancourt-Morel, M.-P., Brassard, A., & Daspe, M.-È. (2025). Attachment anxiety and relationship satisfaction in the digital era: The contribution of social media jealousy and electronic partner surveillance. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.70074


Papa, C., Uvelli, A., Franquillo, A. C., Floridi, M., Perdighe, C., Mancini, F., & Pugliese, E. (2026). Measuring jealousy in intimate relationships: A systematic review of instruments and their psychometric qualities. Current Psychology, 45, Article 252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-08635-9


Pichon, M., Treves-Kagan, S., Stern, E., Kyegombe, N., Stöckl, H., & Buller, A. M. (2020). A mixed-methods systematic review: Infidelity, romantic jealousy and intimate partner violence against women. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(16), 5682. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165682


Sharpsteen, D. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1997). Romantic jealousy and adult romantic attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 627–640. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.627


Tandon, A., Dhir, A., & Mäntymäki, M. (2021). Jealousy due to social media? A systematic literature review and framework of social media-induced jealousy. Internet Research, 31(5), 1541–1582. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-02-2020-0103


Theiss, J. A., & Solomon, D. H. (2006). Coupling longitudinal data and multilevel modeling to examine the antecedents and consequences of jealousy experiences in romantic relationships: A test of the relational turbulence model. Human Communication Research, 32(4), 469–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00284.x


Yang, L., Li, Y., Bian, S., Quan, S., Hu, X., Lin, N., Zhang, D., Zhang, J., & Shen, L. (2026). Self-disclosure in instant messaging: Do disclosure depth and dating style influence romantic jealousy? Computers in Human Behavior, 175, 108846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108846

 
 
bottom of page