A Qualitative Analysis of the Representation of Love and Intimacy Among Generation Z Couples
Keywords:
Generation Z, love, intimacy, couples, thematic analysis, digital relationshipsAbstract
This study aimed to qualitatively explore how Generation Z couples in Tehran represent, experience, and negotiate love and intimacy in their romantic relationships. This qualitative study was conducted using thematic analysis. The participants included 24 individuals from Generation Z couples in Tehran, selected through purposive sampling with attention to variation in age, relationship duration, marital status, and educational level. Data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews. Sampling continued until theoretical saturation was achieved; initial saturation occurred after the twentieth interview, and four additional interviews were conducted to ensure conceptual richness. All interviews were audio-recorded with informed consent, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using NVivo software. To enhance trustworthiness, member checking, constant comparison, analytic memo writing, peer review, and careful documentation of the coding process were applied. Thematic analysis resulted in five main categories: love as emotional recognition and validation, hybrid intimacy across face-to-face and digital spaces, negotiated commitment and boundaries of individuality, emotional vulnerability and fear of rejection, and public representation of the relationship on social media. The findings indicated that Generation Z couples tend to understand love less as a fixed, sacrificial, or hierarchical model and more as an interactive, dialogical, flexible, and emotionally transparent process. Digital space was not merely perceived as a threat to intimacy; rather, it functioned as an integral part of the relational architecture through which closeness, reassurance, conflict, and visibility were negotiated. Love and intimacy among Generation Z couples are formed at the intersection of emotional security, individual autonomy, digital communication, vulnerability, and public relational representation. The findings may help couple therapists, family counselors, and researchers design generation-sensitive interventions for young couples.
Downloads
References
Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 964–980.
Butler, E. A., & Randall, A. K. (2013). Emotional coregulation in close relationships. Emotion Review, 5(2), 202–210.
Coan, J. A., & Sbarra, D. A. (2015). Social baseline theory: The social regulation of risk and effort. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 87–91.
Diamond, L. M., & Aspinwall, L. G. (2003). Emotion regulation across the life span. Psychology and Aging, 18(2), 247–260.
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2015). A new look at social support. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–147.
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(3), 737–745.
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299.
Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26.
Johnson, S. M. (2004). The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy. New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3–34.
Lavner, J. A., & Bradbury, T. N. (2012). Why do even satisfied newlyweds eventually divorce? Journal of Family Psychology, 26(1), 1–10.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Overall, N. C., Simpson, J. A., & Struthers, H. (2013). Buffering attachment-related avoidance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(5), 854–871.
Pietromonaco, P. R., & Beck, L. A. (2019). Adult attachment and emotion regulation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 34–39.
Reed, R. G., Barnard, K., & Butler, E. A. (2015). Distinguishing emotional co-regulation from other related constructs. Motivation and Emotion, 39(4), 546–556.
Rogge, R. D., Cobb, R. J., Lawrence, E., Johnson, M. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (2013). Is skills training enough? Journal of Family Psychology, 27(5), 831–843.
Downloads
Published
Submitted
Revised
Accepted
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
