in 1992, a preacher named Gary Chapman published a book titled The 5 Love Languages: The Secret to Love that Lasts. The book was based on his personal experience as a preacher in his community, which consisted of religious, married individuals with similar opinions and backgrounds.
The book gained enormous popularity—it sold over 20 million copies, was translated into 50 languages.
The book is based on four main ideas:
The First Idea: There are 5 ways to express love, and here they are in no particular order:
Quality time: Planned time where attention is fully focused on each other.
Receiving gifts that symbolize appreciation.
Providing practical help.
Words that express appreciation and reinforcement.
Physical touch, which could range from holding hands to something more intimate.
The Second Idea: Each person has a way in which they give and want to receive love.
The Third Idea: Most relationship problems arise because partners speak different love languages. People may feel unloved even though their partner is expressing love—just not in their preferred language. The person giving love in the wrong language feels frustrated because in spite of all their efforts the other person feels unloved.
The Fourth and Final Idea: With a short quiz, you can identify each partner's love language and then learn to express and receive love in the appropriate language. The questions are framed as choosing between two different ways of expressing love, asking which is more meaningful for you. For example, "What's more significant: holding hands or receiving a gift?"
Sounds great and intuitive, right?
Except that these assumptions have been examined in research and were usually disproved or found to have very weak support.
Contrary to Chapman’s assumption that people have one dominant love language, it turns out that people speak all five languages fluently. When people are asked to rate the importance of each love language individually—such as rating the significance of holding hands and then in a separate question rating the significance of receiving a gift—they yield different results than those predicted by Chapman’s test. It turns out people rate all five languages as meaningful.
Moreover, according to Chapman’s test, most people’s love language is either physical touch or quality time. But in the second version of the quiz (when each language is rated separately), suddenly most people’s love language shifts to receiving gifts—a language that Chapman claims fits less than 4% of people. This shows that a small change in how the question is posed can lead to an entirely different diagnosis, raising the question of which method is more correct or how reliable these tests really are.
The concept of love languages ignores context—sometimes one language is appropriate, and at other times another is needed. For example, if someone whose love language is physical touch gets a flat tire and they would feel loved if their partner come and change the tire or take the car to the shop—not just give them a warm hug and encouraging words as they drive off.
Research on whether there are indeed five distinct love languages has not confirmed Chapman’s theory. People who love compliments also love gifts and appreciate help when needed. Unlike Chapman, who assumed there are five love languages and then tested to see which language different people fit into, researchers looked at what people actually do to express love and found additional ways that Chapman did not include: supporting a partner’s autonomy and goals, integrating them into social circles, and resolving conflicts peacefully.
So, not five languages, and not one primary language for each person. According to Chapman, when partners don’t speak the same love language, it creates misunderstandings and problems in the relationship. However, research comparing relationship satisfaction between two groups—one in which partners speak the same love language and one in which they speak different love languages—found no difference. oops. Similarly, when comparing the satisfaction of partners in relationships where they receive gestures in their love language versus those who receive gestures not aligned with their love language, no difference was found. People were satisfied with the relationship when they received more gestures, regardless of the "language."
Why is Chapman’s idea so popular?
People love “test yourself” quizzes, and they love easy-to-implement solutions like learning their partner’s love language. The problem is that this puts people into boxes that don’t always fit.
Dr. Amy Muise (see reference at the end) suggests that love languages are like nutrients—expressing love in just one way is like eating only carbs. We need a balanced diet, meaning we need to express all five love languages, and even other ways that Chapman didn’t include. Moreover, the “diet” changes based on circumstances: sometimes there’s a need for physical touch, and other times for practical help. It’s very likely that many people don’t use all the love languages, and their partners feel the absence of some of them. It’s not because the partners necessarily need that specific language, but because it’s better to express all of them.
In conclusion, Chapman’s model of the five love languages has very little research support. Yes, there are different ways to express love, and Chapman gave them definitions that are easy to understand. Like any good myth, there’s a kernel of truth—there are indeed different ways to express love. But the idea that a quiz can identify a person’s love language and that couples need to match in their love languages has no basis, even though it sounds so tempting and intuitive.
If couples were to go to counseling, and the counselor asked them about their astrological signs, they would feel deceived—they came for qualified counseling based on science! The counselor, too, would likely dismiss astrology as nonsense. Yet unfortunately, the theory of love languages sounds scientific but, in my opinion, is not much different from horoscopes. I believe that the deep infiltration of this unsubstantiated theory into the mainstream warrants re-evaluation on how the field accepts ideas.
This post is based on an article by Dr. Amy Muise from York University in Toronto: "Popular Psychology Through a Scientific Lens: Evaluating Love Languages From a Relationship Science Perspective".
The article was published in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science in 2024.
Comments