The Five Love Languages model was developed by Gary Chapman. Based on his clinical work, Chapman hypothesized that partners in relationships communicate love in different preferred ways and anticipate different expressions of love.
Based on
his observations, he identified five expressions of love. The idea is that one
or two of these “love languages” or expressions are more preferred than the
other expressions. And each partner may have a different order of preferences.
Words of Affirmation (e.g., words of appreciation and
affirmation; express kindness)
Quality Time (e.g., focused attention without interruption
and without giving advice)
Receiving Gifts (giving gifts, which need not be expensive; the
gift of time during a crisis)
Acts of Service (e.g., completing tasks for them)
Physical Touch (e.g., sexual and nonsexual)
These five
expressions have been operationalized in a 30-item scale, which is called a
quiz in online presentations.
Psychotherapists
and lay people have found the measure and the theory useful. Several books offer
suggestions on how the five love languages work for individuals and couples.
A Critique of Five Love Languages
Researchers Impett, Park, and Muise examined evaluated the Love Languages concept (2024). One reason for the investigation was the limited scientific evidence supporting Love Languages. In Table 1 of their analysis, the authors provide evidence that does not support three core assumptions.
A Few Examples
1. Instead of having a primary love language, people gave high ratings to all of the love languages.
2. Analyses do not find consistent results for a five-factor structure.
3. High relationship satisfaction does not appear restricted to a love language match. Relationship satisfaction may be associated with all expressions of love.
The authors suggest a different metaphor in their abstract:
We offer an alternative metaphor that we believe more accurately reflects a large body of empirical research on relationships: Love is not akin to a language one needs to learn to speak but can be more appropriately understood as a balanced diet in which people need a full range of essential nutrients to cultivate lasting love. Impett et al., 2024
See Impett et al. (2024) for the evidence supporting their findings.
The concept of love fits in the E dimension of the SCOPES model. Thoughts about love and behavioral expressions fit in the C and O dimensions and reflect the common cognitive-affective-behavioral approach to human functioning. There are of course two important contextual basis for understanding love. The biological component of love is reflected in the P dimension and the relationship context in the S dimension. Finally, The S for the core Self is vital to understand how a person integrated their loving experience as part of their self-identity and self-esteem.
References
Bland, A. M., & McQueen, K. S. (2018). The distribution
of Chapman’s love languages in couples: An exploratory cluster analysis. Couple
and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 7(2), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000102
Chapman, G.
(2015). The 5 love languages. Chicago:
Northfield.
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, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214231217663
Related
posts
Sternberg’s
Triangular Love Scale
and see my books on AMAZON or GOOGLE
STORE
Also,
consider connecting with me on FACEBOOK Geoff W. Sutton
TWITTER @Geoff.W.Sutton
You can read many published articles at no charge:
Academia Geoff W Sutton ResearchGate
Geoffrey
W Sutton
