The Psychology Behind Love Languages: A Scientific Exploration (2024)

The Present— Science

Where we left off last week, we discussed the origins and modern interpretations of love languages. The tool was introduced by Dr. Gary Chapman in 1992 and has become a widely recognized tool for understanding how people express and receive love. While Chapman’s approach emphasizes empathy and adapting to a partner’s needs, modern interpretations on social media have sometimes skewed this, turning love languages into a means of self-validation or even a compatibility test.

Leaving aside the issues I attribute to its misuse, I also see inherent problems with the book’s framework. Chapman tries to dodge this scrutiny by claiming he is not a researcher. But when your framework becomes so influential in love’s discourse and sells over 20 million copies in 50 different languages you have to be taken to task — logically and scientifically. That said, the science surrounding the five love languages is not definitive or straightforward.

The first study I found on the 5 love languages was a Ph.D. thesis written in 2004 at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. This study involved over 100 married individuals from Lakeside Baptist Church in Hood County, Texas. To the author’s surprise, they found that alignment in love languages did not significantly impact marital satisfaction. However, marital satisfaction is a complex construct and the author lists multiple other reasons why the study was limited. That said, the author already opened the door for critiques of the love languages stating that “focus on only five love languages could be a limitation” and “It is possible that instead of individuals having just one primary love language, all of the love languages are needed for a healthy marriage”.

In the 20 years since then, the papers I found didn’t make things that much clearer:

• Another study in 2006 found some validity in Chapman’s framework but stated that it was inconclusive.

• One 2013 study found evidence that contradicts Chapman’s idea that people tend to give their own preferred love language.

• A 2013 Indonesian study found some validity to the 5 distinct love languages framework Chapman constructed. However, the vast majority of participants were found to have two or more primary love languages.

• A study in 2016 showed some validation of the existence of Chapman’s love languages but also suggested a potential sixth being check-ins.

• One 2017 study found limited evidence that alignment in love languages promoted higher relationship satisfaction. More importantly, though, the study suggested that the effectiveness of Chapman’s love languages lies in a partner’s ability to regulate their behavior and emotions. Female self-regulation improved relationship satisfaction for both partners, especially when their primary love languages differed.

• A 2018 study found that partners who felt their preferred love language was used well reported higher love and satisfaction. And that women felt more love with gifts, acts of service, and physical touch than men.

• Another 2018 study found that when partners’ preferred ways of expressing and receiving love were more aligned, their relationship tended to be more satisfying and less distressing.

• In a 2021 Turkish study, researchers found that four out of the five love languages—Physical Touch, Words of Affirmation, Quality Time, and Receiving Gifts—contribute to higher marital satisfaction by helping individuals maintain their identity and emotions while staying connected to their partners.

• A 2022 study found that when partners match each other’s preferences for Love Languages they are more satisfied with their relationships and sexual life. Their work was inconclusive on the crux of Chapman’s theories.

• A 2022 study from the NIH found that couples who aligned their expressions of love with their partner’s preferred love language experienced greater relationship and sexual satisfaction. Most notably, empathy and perspective-taking were found to be crucial in understanding and responding to a partner’s love language preferences. In addition, the study indirectly implied that men’s ability to empathize and adjust their behavior accordingly improves relationship satisfaction. Both genders rated physical touch as their highest-rated preference. The study also found that women generally desired to receive love more intensely from their partner than men did.

Despite how much I went into “the literature” and understood most of the basic statistics and conclusions, I feel there are some issues. I had some takeaways although I felt they were half-baked. My selection of papers may not be the most representative. If you read between the lines you can tell I was looking for more positive analyses of Chapman's work to make up for my internal skepticism.

Aside from this, I lack the domain expertise to understand the issues in the methodologies and the extent of each study's applicability. To me, human data has always been hard to extrapolate from. Look at the variations that exist between people and how hard we are to sample— I often joke that social science is more difficult than rocket science. I felt unsure about sharing my conclusions. That was until a paper came in 2024 that solved all my problems.

The current definitive paper collating much of the social sciences analyses on the five love languages (much more competently than I managed to) was penned in a 2024 paper by Emily A. Impett, Haeyoung Gideon Park, and Amy Muise. The Washington Post wrote an article about the paper and featured responses from Chapman himself to certain key parts. With this and my prior analyses, I feel confident to share the following conclusions:

1. There are more than 5 love languages

This was the most obvious for me. Chapman conceived of the possible expressions of love from his numerous observations but it doesn't take away from the fact it's just arbitrary. They could easily be subsumed or expanded into other frameworks. To me, they show positive aspects of love like affection, appreciation, consideration, and attentiveness. I think his perspective constrains love. That is why numerous social media posts shared hyper-specific words or actions that don’t fall neatly into Chapman's languages (Even with his dialect framework). How one loves and shows love is left up to each partner's creativity and I’m sure some people can express love in ways their partner never even imagined but deeply appreciate. But you don’t have to take my word for it, hear it from Chapman:

“I was never dogmatic to say that there’s only five love languages…. I’m still open, but I’m a little more confident that these (five) are pretty much fundamental to human nature.”

2. People may not have a fixed or single primary love language

Childhood does have a significant effect on us as adults but as adults, we can grow. If people's attachment styles can change over time, so can their primary love language. People could also just need different love languages depending on the phase of life they are going through. And it need not be limited to one. People may also fundamentally need multiple primary languages. Chapman's analogy should not prevent us from understanding that for ourselves or doing that for others. On this Chapman responds:

“I mean all five of these are ways that anybody can receive love,”….. “We’re not going to turn away any one of them I think, but if we don’t have love in our primary language, we will not feel loved, even though our spouses speak in some of the other languages.”

3. You and your partner do not necessarily have better odds of compatibility if you speak the same love language

Although lightly mentioned in the book, as previously stated people are using the languages as a screening tool to look for people to connect only if they share the same language. From what I have seen, a partner's empathy and self-control matter more than their primary love language as this can allow them to adapt to whatever form of love you need.

4. There is utility in the Love Language Framework

Despite Impett et al dismantling the specifics behind Chapman's framework, to me, they go overboard with the idea of completely dismissing it. I think it has some utility depending on how it’s used. I think it can be a useful tool for starting conversations about emotional needs. The more strictly people adhere to it, the more deleterious I see its effect. If someone gave me a tool that had a 50/50 chance of improving my odds at no cost would I take it? Yes. Would I put all my faith in it and get hung up on its specifics? No. As Jesus did with the 10 commandments I think I can boil down the love languages into a simple sentence — Have empathy towards your partner and listen to them.

Unlike other pseudo-scientific measures, I think Chapman's framework has some utility in its most charitable form — even with its errors. I’m a pragmatist, I understand people need ways to simplify relationships. I just think that if people are aware of its limitations they can have good outcomes. I think people are doing that with Chapman’s book and finding value, the numbers don’t lie…..

However, there are other significant issues to consider. In my research, I came across some darker issues with Chapman's work. Due to the nature of the book's aim to help people maintain relationships, it can insidiously be weaponized as a tool to keep people in abusive ones as well. This should be more guarded against. In the 1992 edition of the book, he shares that he advised a woman who felt used and hated her husband, to improve their marriage by focusing on verbal affirmations and physical touch, initially suggesting frequent sex.

Specifically, he recommended she initiate sex with the husband more often and try to have sex at least twice a week eventually — yikes. This example has been adjusted in the 2015 version to just reaching out with physical gestures and easing into sex slowly. You can find a definitive list of the issues with Chapman’s work in the citations across all Sources/Additional Readings (some of the lower Amazon Reviews are insightful too). These need to be guarded against. These and other issues are discussed in the sources/additional reading sections. That said let us go back to the science.

At the end of Impett et al’s theory, they share a food analogy as an alternative to Chapmans, viewing the love languages all as part of a balanced diet. In the words of Rebecca Watson, a YouTuber who regularly uses research to debunk popular myths, “It’s pulled completely out of thin air”. She and I were not satisfied with this conclusion, they had no further evidence to back it up. It doesn’t make sense given how much effort they put into debunking some of the core tenets of Chapman's theory. I felt that in the vast corpus of psychology, there had to be a better model that could help us navigate relationships- there was.

Join me in my next post, uncovering and decoding the most science-backed system that can help you save and maintain relationships.

Follow me on @thinkinganddata on all platforms including:

Substack | Medium | Instagram | Threads | X(Twitter)

Share

Share Thinkinganddata’s Substack

Sources/Additional Reading:

Videos/Podcasts

1. Rebecca Watson. (2024, July 22). My Love Language is Debunking: What’s the Science Say About Healthy Relationships? [Video]. YouTube.

2. The View. (2024, July 17). Love Languages Are Fake Says New Research [Video]. YouTube.

3. Alice Cappelle. (2024, July 21). The Five Love Languages are not about love [Video]. YouTube.

4. BigJoel. (2024, April 30). Love Languages: A Philosophical Horror [Video]. YouTube.

5. Michael Hobbes, Peter Shamshiri. (2023, April). The 5 Love Languages [Audio podcast episode]. If Books Could Kill. Spotify.

6. Mickey Atkins, (2021, Aug 7). Therapist Made an Uneducated Book Review: The 5 Love Languages by Gary Chapman Sucks [Video]. YouTube.

Articles:

1. Your Love Language Isn’t Saving Your Relationship by the Swaddle — December 9, 2023

2. THE QUESTIONABLE ORIGIN OF LOVE LANGUAGES by Coveteur -November 12, 2023

3. Love languages are hugely popular — but there’s very little evidence they exist at all by the conversion — February 13, 2023

4. What the 5 love languages get right, and what they get very wrong by Vox — February 14, 2024

5. Is There Science Behind the Five Love Languages? by Greater Good Magazine — March 3, 2023

6. Does your ‘love language’ really matter? Scientists are skeptical. by the Washington Post — January 15, 2024

7. Here’s how ‘love languages’ can actually change your relationship by Science Focus — February 14, 2024

8. Love is more complex than ‘5 love languages,’ says expert by Virginia Tech —  February 12, 2024

9. Surely it’s time to retire the concept of “love languages”? by Vogue India —  February 19, 2023

10. 6 Problems With The Love Languages, From A Couples Therapist by Mindbodygreen — December 01, 2020

11. Everyone is wrong about “Love Languages.” Here’s why. by Bigthink — February 13, 2024

12. Everything you know about ‘love languages’ is wrong by Inews — December 6, 2023

13. It Isn’t About Your Love Language; It’s About Your Partner’s by the Atlantic — October 20, 2019

14. Your Love Language Might Actually Be All Of Them by refinery29 — November 21, 2023

15. Wait, are love languages fake? Let us explain… by the Cosmopolitan — June 22, 2024

16. Love languages have been used by couples for years. But are they actually helpful? by Desernews — February 14, 2024

17. Love languages are fake, scientists say by Mashable — January 30, 2024

18. You cannot put people into arbitrary boxes’: Psychologists critique the ‘5 love languages by LiveScience — February 14, 2024

19. What Research Says About the Five Love Languages by Christianity Today — February 12, 2024

20. Little evidence linking five ‘love languages’ to healthy relationships, researchers say by University of Toronto — January 4, 2024

21. Gupta ’25: The “love language” framework is flawed — we must love beyond it by The Brown Daily Herald — October 13, 2023

22. What Are The 5 Love Languages? Everything You Need To Know by MindBodyGreen — May 07, 2024

23. The Creator of the Love Languages Wasn’t Looking for a Hit by The New York Times—August 27, 2022

Papers:

1. Impett, E. A., Park, H. G., & Muise, A. (2024). Popular Psychology Through a Scientific Lens: Evaluating Love Languages From a Relationship Science Perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 33(2), 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214231217663

2. Thatcher, E. D. (2004). The interaction between love language and marital alignment on marital satisfaction for selected married individuals. (Doctoral dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Retrieved from ProQuest

3. Egbert, N., & Polk, D. (2006). Speaking the Language of Relational Maintenance: A Validity Test of Chapman’s (1992) Five Love Languages. Communication Research Reports, 23(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/17464090500535822

4. Pett, R. C., Lozano, P. A., & Varga, S. (2022). Revisiting the Languages of Love: An Empirical Test of the Validity Assumptions Underlying Chapman’s (2015) Five Love Languages Typology. Communication Reports, 36(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2022.2113549

5. Cook, M., Pasley, J., Pellarin, E., Medow, K., Baltz, M., & Buhman-Wiggs, A. (2013). Construct validation of the Five Love Languages. Journal of Psychological Inquiry, 18(2), 50–61. © Great Plains Behavioral Research Association. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.24123/aipj.v31i2.565

6. Polk, D. M., & Egbert, N. (2013). Speaking the language of love: On whether Chapman’s (1992) claims stand up to empirical testing. The Open Communication Journal, 7, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874916X20130423001

7. BUNT, S. and HAZELWOOD, Z.J. (2017), Walking the walk, talking the talk: Love languages, self-regulation, and relationship satisfaction. Pers Relationship, 24: 280–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12182

8. İnce, Ş., & Işık, E. (2021). The Mediating Role of Five Love Languages between Differentiation of Self and Marital Satisfaction. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 50(4), 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2021.1930607

9. Mostova O, Stolarski M, Matthews G (2022) I love the way you love me: Responding to partner’s love language preferences boosts satisfaction in romantic heterosexual couples. PLOS ONE 17(6): e0269429. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429

10. Surijah, E. A., & Septiarly, Y. L. (2016). Construct Validation of Five Love Languages. Anima Indonesian Psychological Journal, 31(2), 65–76. https://journal.ubaya.ac.id/index.php/jpa/article/view/Five%20Love%20Languages/423

11. Bland, Andrew M. and Kand S. McQueen (2018). The Distribution of Chapman’s Love Languages in Couples: An Exploratory Cluster Analysis. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice 7, 103–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000102

12. Hughes, J. L., & Camden, A. A. (2020). Using Chapman’s Five Love Languages theory to predict love and relationship satisfaction. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 25(3), 234–244. Retrieved from https://www.psichi.org/page/253JNSpecialIssue2020