Evolution of Love in the Coronavirus Crisis: Lived Experience of Couples with Stable Marriage

Rafiee, Farahnaz; Sodani, Mansour; Gholamzadeh Jofreh, Maryam

Volume 13 - Articles-1402 MEJDS (2023) 13: 88 | Back to browse issues page

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Rafiee F, Sodani M, Gholamzadeh Jofreh M. Evolution of Love in the Coronavirus Crisis: Lived Experience of Couples with Stable Marriage. MEJDS 2023; 13 :88-88
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-3172-en.html

Evolution of Love in the Coronavirus Crisis: Lived Experience of Couples with Stable Marriage

Farahnaz Rafiee¹

, Mansour Sodani ^*²

, Maryam Gholamzadeh Jofreh³

1- PhD Student in Counseling, Department of Counseling, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran
2- Professor, Department of Counseling, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Counseling, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran

Abstract: (1024 Views)

Abstract
Background & Objectives: The COVID–19 epidemic and its resulting restrictions created challenging conditions for all human societies. One of the research areas has been the effect of the COVID–19 pandemic on the emotional relationships of couples. Quarantine situation, distancing and limitation of social relationships, economic problems, and demanding responsibilities at home and family caused stresses, extending over all extramarital areas to the interpersonal space of couples. However, the emotional relationships of spouses in general and marital love in particular have a fantastic potential to motivate couples to deal with problems positively, provide strong support, and develop dyadic strategies to counteract crises. Love of couples in the era of COVID–19 is a transformer and transformable phenomenon, creating an evolution in couples' responses to the crisis. This research aims to study the evolution of love in the COVID–19 era based on the lived experience of couples with enduring marriages.
Methods: The current research was conducted in 2023 and employed a qualitative approach. Focusing on the participants' lived experiences, we used the interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) method to analyze the study data. The statistical population included couples with stable marriages and experienced love in their married life. Sampling was done in a purposeful way and with the snowball method. The adequacy of the sample size was achieved based on the theoretical saturation criterion from interviews with 15 couples. Each research unit included a couple (husband and wife). We employed in–depth semi–structured interviews to access the couples' experiences and collect data. The interviews for each couple consisted of two individual sessions and one joint couple session, held in virtual or physical space between 60 and 90 minutes. A written consent form was taken from the couples to record the sessions. After the interview, it was transcribed, and open identifiers were extracted. In the next step, all the available identifiers were placed in conceptually similar classes under the title of primary concepts. Then, sub–themes emerged by classifying primary concepts under general and abstract classes. In the final stage, the research themes were obtained by categorizing the sub–themes based on a systematic pattern. The research was validated based on the reliability criteria of Lincoln and Guba (1985) with five components: credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, and inferential adequacy.
Results: The findings of this research consisted of 280 open identifiers, 81 primary concepts, 11 sub–themes, and 3 themes. The discovered sub–themes included being together, inclusive care, self–sacrifice, sexual relationship rearrangement, adjustment of individuality–intimacy, mutual responsibility, cooperation and sharing, management of emerging conflicts, dyadic cohesion, creativity, and flexibility, and making marital purposeful. In the final stage of this process, 3 main themes were obtained: expansion of intimacy, evolution of interactive strategies, and dyadic adaptation and coping. In the data analysis process, two dimensions of couples' experiences emerged: internal experiences and relational experiences.
Conclusion: During the COVID–19 era, the experience of love in the lives of couples with a history of romantic relationships was continuously and positively circled, encompassing the effects of romantic emotions on coping with the crisis and the effects of couples' dyadic coping on the expansion of romantic emotions. These experiences show the evolution of love in dealing with the challenge of the COVID–19 disease and the value of romantic investments in crisis management.

Keywords: Love, Crisis of pandemic, COVID–19, Lived experience, Stable marriage

Full-Text [PDF 642 kb] (337 Downloads)

Type of Study: Original Research Article | Subject: Counseling

References

1. Pietromonaco PR, Overall NC. Applying relationship science to evaluate how the COVID–19 pandemic may impact couples' relationships. Am Psychol. 2021;76(3):438–50. [DOI]

2. Eder SJ, Nicholson AA, Stefanczyk MM, Pieniak M, Martínez–Molina J, Pešout O, et al. Securing your relationship: quality of intimate relationships during the COVID–19 pandemic can be predicted by attachment style. Front Psychol. 2021;12:647956. [DOI]

3. Williamson HC. Early effects of the COVID–19 pandemic on relationship satisfaction and attributions. Psychol Sci. 2020;31(12):1479–87. [DOI]

4. Balzarini RN, Muise A, Zoppolat G, Gesselman AN, Lehmiller JJ, Garcia JR, et al. Sexual desire in the time of COVID–19: How COVID–related stressors are associated with sexual desire in romantic relationships. Arch Sex Behav. 2022;51(8):3823–38. [DOI]

5. Stanley SM, Markman HJ. Helping couples in the shadow of COVID–19. Fam Process. 2020;59(3):937–55. [DOI]

6. Günther–Bel C, Vilaregut A, Carratala E, Torras–Garat S, Pérez–Testor C. A mixed–method study of individual, couple, and parental functioning during the state–regulated COVID–19 lockdown in Spain. Fam Process. 2020;59(3):1060–79. [DOI]

7. Pietromonaco PR, Overall NC. Implications of social isolation, separation, and loss during the COVID–19 pandemic for couples' relationships. Curr Opin Psychol. 2022;43:189–94. [DOI]

8. Tobore TO. Towards a comprehensive theory of love: the quadruple theory. Front Psychol. 2020;11:862. [DOI]

9. Gómez–López M, Viejo C, Ortega–Ruiz R. Well–being and romantic relationships: a systematic review in adolescence and emerging adulthood. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(13):2415. [DOI]

10. Davila J, Mattanah J, Bhatia V, Latack JA, Feinstein BA, Eaton NR, et al. Romantic competence, healthy relationship functioning, and well–being in emerging adults. Personal Relationships. 2017;24(1):162–84. [DOI]

11. Donato S, Parise M, Pagani AF, Lanz M, Regalia C, Rosnati R, et al. Together against COVID–19 concerns: the role of the dyadic coping process for partners' psychological well–being during the pandemic. Front Psychol. 2020;11:578395. [DOI]

12. Yang H, Ma J. How an epidemic outbreak impacts happiness: factors that worsen (vs. protect) emotional well–being during the coronavirus pandemic. Psychiatry Res. 2020;289:113045. [DOI]

13. Özad BE, Jamo MS, Uygarer G. COVID–19 restrictions, lifestyles, and marital conflicts: an empirical analysis of marital sustainability. Sustainability. 2022;14(18):11249. [DOI]

14. Bradbury–Jones C, Isham L. The pandemic paradox: the consequences of COVID–19 on domestic violence. J Clin Nurs. 2020;29(13–14):2047–9. [DOI]

15. Osur J, Ireri EM, Esho T. The effect of COVID–19 and its control measures on sexual satisfaction among married couples in Kenya. Sex Med. 2021;9(3):100354. [DOI]

16. Schmid L, Wörn J, Hank K, Sawatzki B, Walper S. Changes in employment and relationship satisfaction in times of the COVID–19 pandemic: evidence from the German family panel. European Societies. 2021;23(sup1):S743–58. [DOI]

17. Alase A. The interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): a guide to a good qualitative research approach. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies. 2017;5(2):9–19. [DOI]

18. Parvari P. The transition from philosophy to methodology,a new reading of the phenomenology method:the foundation of philosophical approaches and implementation steps. Sociological studies. 2019;12(44):87–106. [Persian] [DOI]

19. McMullin C. Transcription and qualitative methods: implications for third sector research. Voluntas. 2023;34(1):140–53. [DOI]

20. Lincoln Y, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1985.

21. Sagone E, Commodari E, Indiana ML, La Rosa VL. Exploring the association between attachment style, psychological well–being, and relationship status in young adults and adults–a cross–sectional study. Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ. 2023;13(3):525–39. [DOI]

22. Balzarini RN, Muise A, Zoppolat G, Di Bartolomeo A, Rodrigues DL, Alonso–Ferres M, et al. Love in the time of COVID: perceived partner responsiveness buffers people from lower relationship quality associated with COVID related stressors. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2023;14(3):342–55. [DOI]

23. Feeney BC, Lemay EP. Surviving relationship threats: the role of emotional capital. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2012;38(8):1004–17. [DOI]

24. Hazan C, Shaver P. Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987;52(3):511–24. [DOI]

25. Collins NL, Ford MB. Responding to the needs of others: the caregiving behavioral system in intimate relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2010;27(2):235–44. [DOI]

26. Kamali Z, Allahyar N, Ostovar S, Alhabshi SMS bin SM, Griffiths MD. Factors that influence marital intimacy: a qualitative analysis of iranian married couples. Cogent Psychology. 2020;7(1):1771118. [DOI]

27. Vowels LM, Francois–Walcott RRR, Perks RE, Carnelley KB. "Be free together rather than confined together": a qualitative exploration of how relationships changed in the early COVID–19 pandemic. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2021;38(10):2921–43. [DOI]

28. Berli C, Schwaninger P, Scholz U. "We feel good": daily support provision, health behavior, and well–being in romantic couples. Front Psychol. 2021;11:622492. [DOI]

29. Cassidy J, Stern JA, Mikulincer M, Martin DR, Shaver PR. Influences on care for others: attachment security, personal suffering, and similarity between helper and care recipient. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2018;44(4):574–88. [DOI]

30. Mellat Khah S, Haghani Zemydani M, Khazaei S, Ilanloo H. Investigation of adaptability components of couples in corona pandemic crisis: a qualitative study. Rooyesh–e–Ravanshenasi Journal. 2021;10(8):1–12. [Persian] [Article]

31. Rusbult CE, Agnew CR, Arriaga XB. The Investment Model of Commitment Processes. In: Handbook of theories of social psychology: volume 2. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2012. pp: 218–31. [DOI]

32. Khojasteh Mehr R, Mohammadi R, Sudani M, Abbaspur Z. The lived experience of sacrifice in enduring marriages: a descriptive phenomenological psychological study. Journal of Counseling Research. 2018;17(65):150–86. [Persian] [Article]

33. Lin L, Guo H, Duan L, He L, Wu C, Lin Z, et al. Research on the relationship between marital commitment, sacrifice behavior and marital quality of military couples. Front Psychol. 2022;13:964167. [DOI]

34. Gupta S, Bhattacharya S, Banerjee R, Chakraborty A, Das D, De A. The differential impact of COVID–19 pandemic on sexual behavior of eligible couples in urban and rural India. Journal of Psychosexual Health. 2023;5(1):48–53. [DOI]

35. Carvalho J, Pascoal PM. Challenges in the practice of sexual medicine in the time of COVID–19 in Portugal. J Sex Med. 2020;17(7):1212–5. [DOI]

36. Löfgren C, Elmerstig E, Schröder J, Chollier M, Mehulić J, de Graaf H, et al. Changes in intimacy and sexuality during the COVID–19 pandemic: a qualitative analysis of data from a survey on partnered individuals in eight european countries. Sex Cult. 2023;27(2):693–714. [DOI]

37. Karney BR, Bradbury TN. The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: a review of theory, method, and research. Psychol Bull. 1995;118(1):3–34. [DOI]

38. Karantzas GC, Feeney JA, Agnew CR, Christensen A, Cutrona CE, Doss BD, et al. Dealing with loss in the face of disasters and crises: integrating interpersonal theories of couple adaptation and functioning. Curr Opin Psychol. 2022;43:129–38. [DOI]

39. Frost DM, LeBlanc AJ. The complicated connection between closeness and the quality of romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2022;39(5):1237–55. [DOI]

40. Brock RL, Ramsdell EL, Franz MR, Stasik–O'Brien SM, Gervais SJ, Calkins FC. Free to be me with you: development of the individuality in couples questionnaire. Psychol Assess. 2023;35(7):602–17. [DOI]

41. Tan K, Agnew CR, Hadden BW. Seeking and ensuring interdependence: desiring commitment and the strategic initiation and maintenance of close relationships. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2020;46(1):36–50. [DOI]

42. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. Attachment theory and emotions in close relationships: exploring the attachment–related dynamics of emotional reactions to relational events. Personal Relationships. 2005;12(2):149–68. [DOI]

43. Doho SS, Setiawan J. Role of communication and marital acceptance in marital adjustment for dual earners married under 10 years. Makara Human Behavior Studies in Asia. 2022;26(1):44–52. [DOI]

44. Jiang Q. Changes in couples' relationships and their differences in type during the COVID–19 pandemic in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(19):12516. [DOI]

45. Randall AK, Post JH, Reed RG, Butler EA. Cooperating with your romantic partner: Associations with interpersonal emotion coordination. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2013;30(8):1072–95. [DOI]

46. Rosta–Filep O, Sallay V, Carbonneau N, Martos T. Cooperation and conflict in romantic partners' personal projects: the role of life domains. Curr Psychol. 2023;42(20):16854–67. [DOI]

47. Randall AK, Bodenmann G. The role of stress on close relationships and marital satisfaction. Clin Psychol Rev. 2009;29(2):105–15. [DOI]

48. Bodenmann G, Pihet S, Shantinath SD, Cina A, Widmer K. Improving dyadic coping in couples with a stress–oriented approach: a 2–year longitudinal study. Behav Modif. 2006;30(5):571–97. [DOI]

49. Falconier MK, Kuhn R. Dyadic coping in couples: a conceptual integration and a review of the empirical literature. Front Psychol. 2019;10:571. [DOI]

50. Rusbult CE, Van Lange PAM. Why we need interdependence theory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2008;2(5):2049–70. [DOI]

51. Christensen A, Doss BD. Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy. Curr Opin Psychol. 2017;13:111–4. [DOI]

52. Fitzsimons GM, Finkel EJ, vanDellen MR. Transactive goal dynamics. Psychol Rev. 2015;122(4):648–73. [DOI]

53. Daks JS, Rogge RD. Examining the correlates of psychological flexibility in romantic relationship and family dynamics: a meta–analysis. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science. 2020;18:214–38. [DOI]

54. Twiselton K, Stanton SCE, Gillanders D, Bottomley E. Exploring the links between psychological flexibility, individual well–being, and relationship quality. Personal Relationships. 2020;27(4):880–906. [DOI]

55. Tavaloli T, Kimiaee SA, Agha Mohammadian H. The effectiveness of marriage enrichment training of TIME plan on improving marital intimacy and women's psychological security. Practice in Clinical Psychology. 2022;10(3):259–74. [DOI]

56. Lucchetti G, Góes LG, Amaral SG, Ganadjian GT, Andrade I, Almeida PO de A, et al. Spirituality, religiosity and the mental health consequences of social isolation during COVID–19 pandemic. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2021;67(6):672–9. [DOI]

57. Chirico F. Spirituality to cope with COVID–19 pandemic, climate change and future global challenges. Journal of Health and Social Sciences. 2021;6:151–8.