U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List

Logo of plosone

I love the way you love me: Responding to partner’s love language preferences boosts satisfaction in romantic heterosexual couples

Olha Mostova

1 Doctoral School of Social Sciences, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

Maciej Stolarski

2 Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

Gerald Matthews

3 Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Orlando, FL, United States of America

Associated Data

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files

Chapman’s Love Languages hypothesis claims that (1) people vary in the ways they prefer to receive and express affection and (2) romantic partners who communicate their feelings congruent with their partner’s preferences experience greater relationship quality. The author proposes five distinct preferences and tendencies for expressing love, including: Acts of Service, Physical Touch, Words of Affirmation, Quality Time and Gifts. In the present study partners ( N = 100 heterosexual couples) completed measures assessing their preferences and behavioral tendencies for a) expressions of love and b) reception of signs of affection, for each of the five proposed “love languages”. Relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction and empathy were also assessed. The degree of the within-couple mismatch was calculated separately for each individual based on the discrepancies between the person’s felt (preferred) and their partner’s expressed love language. The joint mismatch indicator was a sum of discrepancies across the five love languages. Matching on love languages was associated with both relationship and sexual satisfaction. In particular, people who expressed their affection in the way their partners preferred to receive it, experienced greater satisfaction with their relationships and were more sexually satisfied compared to those who met their partner’s needs to lesser extent. Empathy was expected to be a critical factor for better understanding of and responding to the partner’s needs. Results provided some support for this hypothesis among male but not female participants.

Introduction

Everyone has their own preferences for expressing and receiving romantic feelings. Based on his clinical observations Chapman [ 1 ] identified five distinct ways in which people show and want to receive the signs of commitment. He labeled them ‘love languages’ (LLs) and proposed division into the following domains: 1) words of affirmation (verbal compliments, or words of appreciation), 2) quality time (time spent together implying focused attention of both partners), 3) receiving gifts (visual symbols of affection), 4) acts of service (helping mate with necessary tasks) and 5) physical touch (from holding hands to sexual intercourse).

Chapman [ 1 ] used a metaphor of a ‘love tank’, which reflected people’s emotional need to feel loved. The ‘love tank’ of both partners is filled when each of them expresses the affection in a way another one prefers to receive it. According to Chapman and Southern, “once you identify and learn to speak your spouse’s primary love language…you will have discovered the key to a long-lasting, loving marriage” [ 2 , p. 18]. Thus, the author is convinced that conducting interventions designed to foster better understanding of the partner’s LLs, as well as educating people on how to put this knowledge into practice would lead to a greater relationship maintenance and satisfaction.

People often speak and understand their primary LLs, but they may “learn a secondary love language” [ 2 , p.14]. For example, the husband may be aware of his wife’s desire to receive compliments–words of affirmation, although he himself prefers being physically touched. Therefore, LLs can be divided into those in which people tend to communicate to their partners (expressed love language) and those they prefer to receive in order to keep their emotional ‘love tank’ full (felt love language).

The assumption of basic and fundamental need for love and affection is well-established and empirically supported [ 3 – 5 ]. Multiple research findings also support the notion that human’s need for love and affection boosts both personal well-being [e.g. 6 ] and satisfaction in various types of relationships [e.g. 7 , 8 ].

Research has also addressed the effects of similarity between partners on relationship outcomes. It is well established that similarity and convergence of different types in romantic partners promotes greater relationship satisfaction. For example, similarity in communication values, such as ego support or conflict management, has been shown to promote attraction and greater relationship satisfaction in couples which described themselves as ‘seriously involved’ [ 9 ].

Gonzaga and colleagues [ 10 ] also found that similarity and convergence in the personality between partners promotes similarity in their shared emotional experiences and relationship quality. Yet another study demonstrated that romantic couples who converge in their emotional experiences manifest greater relationship cohesion, while their relationships are less likely to dissolve [ 11 ]. In another study perceived similarity in text messaging, including frequency of initiating a text message exchange and expressing affection, was associated with greater relationship satisfaction [ 12 ].

Sexual satisfaction is another broadly-studied concept in the research on couples and romantic relationships. Various studies found an association between sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction [ 13 , 14 ]. For instance, in a study conducted on 387 couples, sexual satisfaction and communication independently predicted the relationship satisfaction [ 14 ]. Thus, romantic partners who are having difficulties communicating, but are at the same time sexually satisfied, will experience greater marital satisfaction. Similarity in personality traits between marital partners also proved to predict sexual satisfaction [ 15 ] In another study, de Jong and Reis [ 16 ] found that complementarity, but not similarity, in sexual preferences predicted sexual satisfaction, consistent with LL hypothesis. Being aware of one’s partner’s preferences and acting accordingly may increase the couple’s sexual satisfaction.

The act of giving may potentially be more satisfying than benefiting oneself. One study [ 17 ] found that spending more of one’s income on others predicts greater happiness than spending money on themselves. Prosocial spending is positively correlated with greater happiness in both poor and rich countries and even recalling the past instance of spending money on others has a causal impact on happiness [ 18 ]. Thus, it is possible that helping others to match their needs produces a greater emotional benefit than receiving and caring for oneself. Thus, compatibility in LLs may benefit the person as a giver, as well as a receiver.

Empathy is often believed to play a crucial role in relationships of various kinds and to be a key component of effective communication. It can be defined as the “reactions of one individual to the observed experiences of another” [ 19 , p.113]. Empathy is primarily related to one’s ability to understand and share the emotional experiences of others [e.g., 20 ]. According to Davis [ 19 , 21 ], empathy can be divided into four domains, including: empathic concern, personal distress, perspective taking and fantasy.

Research demonstrates a positive relation between a partner’s empathic accuracy and their degree of relationship satisfaction [ 22 , 23 ], when it is present in mundane and nonconflictual settings. Various studies have also found that people with higher levels of empathy are better in detecting their partners’ needs and providing them with higher-quality advice and instrumental support [ 24 – 26 ]. On the other hand, subjective perceptions of empathy may be more important for relationship satisfaction than empathic accuracy [ 27 ], i.e., the objective ability to determine one’s partners views.

Empathic accuracy implies accurate perception of people’s mental states, including thoughts and feelings [ 24 ] people that are more proficient in mentalizing may also be more skillful in understanding their partner’s needs and preferences. Such an awareness may in turn increase the likelihood of fulfilling such needs and make them choose and adjust their behavior more consciously. Thus, empathy may support congruence in LLs. Although there were some attempts to examine the factors that may moderate the relationship satisfaction when partners are misaligned in their LLs [e.g. 28 ], to our knowledge, none of the previous studies have examined the potential mediators that may drive LL matching, leading to elevated satisfaction. An empathic individual may be both more effective in giving the form of love desired by the partner, and in guiding the partner towards understanding their own needs.

Despite the great popularity that Chapman’s work had gained worldwide among both clinicians and general public, the concept of LLs remains relatively unstudied. Egbert and Polk [ 29 ] developed the Love Languages Scale based on concepts found in Chapman’s [ 1 ] LLs and suggested that the five-factor LL model had some psychometric validity. A confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated significant relationship between the five LLs and Stafford, Dainton, and Haas’ [ 30 ] relational maintenance typology, thus supporting their construct validity.

In one version of the scale participants responded about how they tend to feel love. To remain consistent with the literature we followed the term ‘felt LL’ that was used in Egbert and Polk’s [ 31 ] study to infer the preferred way of receiving love from one’s partner. However, it should be noted that two forms of the LL scale provide the data on what makes people feel loved without directly examining what is being preferred, which might be a potential conceptual problem with the LL measure.

Another study utilized measures of the autonomic nervous system, such as skin conductance and respiration rate [ 32 ]. First, 89 participants were asked to complete Chapman’s LLs questionnaire. Next, their psychophysiological responses (skin conductance, heart rate and pulse rate) were measured, while they were listening to the recorded imagery scripts (imaginal exposure and guided imagery) describing each of the LLs. It was found that participant’ arousal level increased when they were listening to their dominating or preferred LL. Specifically, a significant association was found between hearing the imagery script of their primary LL and person’s heart rate and skin conductance, although no significant increase was found in the respiration rate. In addition, good internal consistency and reliability was reported for the scale measurement of the preferred LL [ 33 ].

Other aspects of Chapman’s [ 1 ] claim have not been supported. Egbert and Polk [ 31 ] tested 84 university student couples, who had been together for at least two months. The aims was to check whether partners well-matched in their reported preferences and expressions of LLs reported greater relationship quality. They were grouped into three categories including matched, mismatched and partially matched; however, no significant effect of matching on relationship quality was found. According to later research [ 28 ] sharing the same primary (expressed) LL again did not result in relationship satisfaction. However, the researchers found that female participants’ self-regulation significantly improved partners’ satisfaction when their LLs were misaligned.

Veale [ 34 ] aimed to test whether becoming aware of one’s partner’s preferred LL would result in behavioral adaptation in the absence of any identified external motivation. First, the researcher checked whether participants felt that the love expression used by their partner was correctly identified. Second, descriptions of the LL profiles and category membership were provided to each participant, and the couples were given a brief overview of the love expression behavior related to each of five categories. Additionally, the study considered whether LL expression knowledge would influence participants’ emotional state and behavior, as well as whether efforts to make behavioral accommodation would be noticed by their partners. The research found no statistically significant difference between pre- and posttest means for any of the categories, although in general respondents agreed that their LL was correctly identified. It should be noted that LLs in the study were evaluated categorically using Chapman’s Love Language Profile, which shares the assumption that people have one dominating LL that they both feel and express the most.

The present study: Aims and hypotheses

Chapman’s [ 1 ] basic claim is that people who “talk” their partner’s LL are more satisfied in their relationships, but empirical support for the LL hypothesis remains equivocal. In the present study, we aimed to extend previous findings [e.g. 31 ] by adopting a novel, continuous approach to measure match/mismatch between partners’ LLs. Treating LL mismatch as a continuous dimension may preserve information on level of mismatch that is lost by assessing it on a categorical basis, and provide a more sensitive test of its relationships with other variables. First, we aimed to check whether romantic partners who receive affection in ways consistent with their partner’s style of expressing love report higher relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction. We asked people separately about when they feel loved the most (i.e., preference for receiving love) and how they prefer to express affirmation of love. The aim was to assess the partner’s match not only in term of their dominant love language, but to also take into account possible that one’s preferences for receiving love may differ from one’s style of expressing and communicating love.

Second, we aimed to distinguish “actor” effects (mismatch lowers one’s own satisfaction) and “partner” effects (mismatch lowers the other person’s satisfaction). Chapman’s [ 1 ] hypothesis emphasizes the former, but there may also be a reciprocal effect, i.e., if my partner feels s/he is not receiving the love affirmations s/he wants, the partner’s deficit in feeling loved may lower my satisfaction. This approach provided a full picture of the interplay between both partners’ expressed and felt LLs, contrary to Chapman’s assumption that people give and feel only one dominating LL.

We aimed to test four hypotheses:

  • Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction are negatively associated with the mismatch between the person’s felt and their partner’s expressed LLs (actor effect). This is the central claim of Chapman [ 1 ]. His account of the LLs hypothesis does not imply that the importance of LLs varies for men and women, but we tested for possible gender differences on an exploratory basis.
  • Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction are negatively associated with the mismatch between the person’s expressed and their partner’s felt LLs (partner effect). The partner’s feelings of not being adequately loved may influence actor satisfaction.
  • Matching in LLs is associated with empathy levels, given that empathy is likely to support adaptation to the partner’s needs. Given that empathy is a multifaceted construct, we hypothesized that its most adaptive facets, i.e., empathic concern (emotional empathy) and perspective taking (cognitive empathy), would be the aspects related to LLs.
  • Empathy is associated with higher relationship and sexual satisfaction, as in multiple previous studies [e.g. 35 – 37 ]. We also anticipated testing the mediating role of empathy in the LL mismatch–satisfaction association, contingent on support for the third and fourth hypotheses.

Participants

The working sample consisted of 100 heterosexual couples (100 men, 100 women), who were sexually active with their partners. All the participants were in a current romantic relationship for at least 6 months. Relationship length varied between 6 months and 24 years ( M = 3.5 years). The initial sample consisted of N = 110, but data from 10 couples was discarded, as only one partner have completed the questionnaire or there was a significant amount of incomplete or missing information for one or both partners. When an individual item was not scored by the respondent, the average over available items was calculated and multiplyed with the number of items in the questionnaire to replace the missing value.

Age of the participants ranged from 17 to 58 (mean: 27.34). Among male participants age varied from 18 to 58 with a mean value of 28.58 ( SD = 9.68). Female age ranged from 17 to 57 with an average value of 25.10 ( SD = 7.89).

The sample was culturally diverse and it included representatives of 31 nationalities. The most commonly occurring nationalities were Ukrainians (N = 67), Poles (N = 24), Belgians (N = 15), Russians (N = 13), Americans (N = 12) and Swedes (N = 12). Majority of both male and female participants indicated their marital status as never married ( n = 116), followed by married ( n = 63), “other” ( n = 13) and divorced ( n = 8).

The participants were recruited using social media and personal connections. The online questionnaire was distributed to volunteers that provided written consent and reported being in the romantic relationships with their current partner for at least 6 months and were either native speakers of English and/or communicated in English to each other, or reported having sufficient fluency to freely and effortlessly communicate with native speakers (i.e., at least B2 level). The data were collected between October 2018 and March 2019. The subjects spent an average of 23 minutes responding to the questionnaire and were not rewarded. The attention check items with reverse wording were used respectively for each inventory to prevent incomplete and low-effort answers.

All participants gave their informed consent to participate in the study of “communication and satisfaction among couples” that is intended to gather information about various aspects of romantic relationships. They were also informed that their answers will not be assessed individually and that they will not receive any feedback on their results as a couple). We asked participants about the relationship’s length and the time since the first sexual intercourse with a current partner to ensure that the participants were sexually active with their current partners, as well as to eliminate the possibility of the ‘honeymoon effect’ [ 38 ]. We also asked both partners about their fluency in English language. Couples were asked not to discuss or compare their results with each other.

Materials and procedure

LLs were assessed using two methods. The first was the forced-choice method used by Egbert and Polk [ 31 ], while the second one included two forms of a LL scale (LLS) requiring independent ratings of preferences, which was developed and validated by Egbert and Polk [ 29 ].

First, participant received a forced-choice LL measure [ 31 ] including the following instructions: “I feel the most loved when my partner: (1) physically touches me (i.e., gives a hug, gives a kiss, holds my hand, touches me), (2) helps me out (i.e., running an errand, finishing a chore for me, helping me out, helping to keep things cleaned up), (3) spends quality time with me (i.e., really listening, doing something we both like, engages in quality conversation, spending free time), (4) says encouraging words (i.e., compliments, expresses appreciation for me, gives me credit for something I did, gives me positive comments), and (5) gives me gifts (i.e., a thoughtful birthday gift, a greeting card, a present for no special reason, a gift after being away)”. This item served only for the purpose of its later comparison to the two versions of LLS in order to check for the consistency of participant’s responses. Thus, this tool was not used as the main indicator of couples’ LLs in the subsequent analysis.

The LLS assessment [ 29 ] involved four behavioral indicators representing each of the ways to feel and express affection. In the first form of the LLS participants were asked to rate the extent to which they tend to express (or give ) love to their partners by engaging in the listed behaviors. The second form of the LLS included the same list of behaviors, but this time participants were asked to rate the extent to which each expression makes them feel loved by their partners. Thus, each version of LLS consisted of 20 self-report items, including four items per each of the five LLs described by Chapman [ 1 ], e.g., “I tend to express my feeling to my partner by telling that I appreciate him/her”. The items were rated using a five-point Likert-type scale to assess the extent of agreement on a scale of 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ). Egbert and Polk [ 29 ] reported sufficient construct validity and reliability of the questionnaire in assessing LLs.

As both partners responded to the two versions of LLS, we obtained information about how they tend to express and prefer to feel love. We could then calculate the discrepancy between these measurements. Thus, the degree to which one’s (partner) preferred to feel love (e.g., when holding hands), as rated on the Likert scale, differed from the second partner’s (actor) degree of expressing love in this way (e.g., by holding hands) served as an indicator of extent to which the respondents felt that their partners were meeting needs in terms of LLs. The sum of the discrepancy scores on the five individual LL components then reflected the degree of match or mismatch.

To remain consistent with the literature we used the term ‘felt LL’ to infer the preferred way of receiving love from one’s partner, as we were following the term used by in the previous studies. However, it should be noted that LLS measure provides the data on what makes people feel loved without directly examining what is being preferred, which might be a potential conceptual problem with the LL measure proposed by Egbert and Polk [ 29 ].

In particular, a value of 0 indicated a complete match between the way the respondent preferred to feel and how their partner expressed love (e.g., participant X rates preference for being complimented as 5, and X’s partner rates his/her expression of compliments as 5). A negative value meant that one’s partner does not express a form of love to the extent desired (e.g. participant X rates preference for being complimented as 5, and X’s partner rates his/her expression of compliments as 1). A positive value indicated that one’s partner overly expressed a form of love that the participant did not require to such an extent (e.g. participant X rates preference for being complimented as 1, and X’s partner rates his/her expression of compliments as 5). Because our interest was in overall mismatch, we converted all discrepancy scores to absolute values and computed the item-level sum of the four scores for each LL. We then summed these discrepancy scores for each individual, to provide an overall index of mismatch between one’s preferences for being loved and partner’s ways of expressing love, based on the 20 item-level discrepancy scores. Our primary outcome measure was thus overall LL mismatch; higher scores indicated greater mismatch. The internal consistency of the calculated sum of discrepancies in our study amounted to Cronbach’s α = .61 for male and α = .70 for female participants.

In addition, the internal consistency was confirmed to be acceptable or good for all of the five LLs scales before they were combined to create the discrepancy scores. In particular, the results suggested a good fit for each of the five expressed LLs: Acts of Service (α = .70), Physical Touch (α = .89), Words of Affirmation (α = .79), Quality Time (α = .78) and Gifts (α = .77). The internal consistency was also confirmed for the five felt LLs scales: Acts of service (α = .74), Physical Touch (α = .85), Words of Affirmation (α = .82), Quality Time (α = .75) and Gifts (α = .84).

Participants’ sexual satisfaction was assessed using the Index of Sexual Satisfaction questionnaire [ISS, 39 ]. The scale consists of 25-Likert-type items (e.g., “I enjoy the sex techniques that my partner likes or uses”, or “I feel that my sex life is boring”) and demonstrated high internal consistency among men (α = .91) and women (α = .92). The participants rated the statements on a 7-point Likert-type, where 1 indicated none of the time and 7 indicated all of the time . The items that implied lower sexual satisfaction (e.g., “I feel that my sex life is boring”) were reversed scored and the total score was calculated as a sum of all item scores. Higher scores indicated greater level of sexual satisfaction.

Relationship satisfaction was measured using the Relationship Assessment Scale [RAS, 40 ], one of the most frequently used questionnaires used for studying relationship quality. RAS consists of seven items measuring general relationship satisfaction (e.g., “To what extent has your relationship met your original expectations?”). Respondents are asked to rate each statement using a 5-point scale. High internal consistency of the measure was confirmed for male (α = .85) and female (α = .87) participants.

Interpersonal Reactivity Index [IRI; 19 ] was applied as a multi-dimensional assessment of empathy. This widely used self-report metric comprises 28 items. The participants are asked to rate their response on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (“ does not describe me well” ) to 5 (“ describes me very well” ). IRI consists of four distinct subscales, including: 1) perspective taking–the tendency to spontaneously adopt the psychological point of view of others; 2) fantasy–indicating tendencies to transpose oneself imaginatively into the feelings and actions of fictitious characters in books, movies, and plays; 3) empathic concern–assessing other-oriented feelings of sympathy and concern for unfortunate others; and 4) personal distress–measuring self-oriented feelings of personal anxiety and unease in tense interpersonal settings.

We hypothesized that perspective taking and empathic concern scales would be negatively associated with LL mismatch, and positively related to satisfaction measures. Fantasy did not appear directly relevant to LLs, whereas personal distress might be positively associated with mismatch. Internal consistencies were acceptable for all four subscales among male subjects, including perspective taking (α = .74), fantasy (α = .77), empathic concern (α = .70), and personal distress (α = .70). In female participants the indicators were acceptable for the empathic concern (α = .80) and fantasy (α = .75) subscales, but poorer for perspective taking (α = .62) and personal distress (α = .60).

Preliminary analyses

This section reports descriptive statistics for the study variables, as well as tests for gender differences. We also tested within-couple correlations to investigate “assortative mating”; the extent to which people partner with those of similar characteristics to themselves.

Table 1 shows LL preferences on the forced-choice measure. Quality time was the most frequently declared LL, followed by physical touch, acts of service, words of affirmation and receiving gifts. In accordance with prior research [ 31 ], there was no significant association between gender and participants’ responses in the forced-choice LL measurement, χ 2 (1) = 14.85, p = .25 (see Table 1 ).

Note . χ 2 (1) = 9.52, p = .25. Numbers in parentheses indicate column percentages.

Table 2 shows means and SDs for the continuous scores. The rank-ordering of means differed a little from the forced-choice data, in that Physical Touch was the highest-rated preference, in both genders, although Quality Time was also highly rated. Also, contrasting with the forced-choice data, women obtained higher mean scores in four out of five LLs dimensions–all except for acts of service. It seems that women generally preferred to receive love from their partners more intensely than men did (see Table 2 ). Table 2 also shows data for ratings of expressed love. The order of preferences was similar to that for feeling preferences. Participants tended to express love to their partners primarily by physically touching them, followed by spending quality time together, saying words of affirmation, doing acts of service and giving gifts. No significant sex difference was observed for any but one expressed LL: female participants scored slightly higher than male participants in the expression of quality time LL.

Note . E = expressed; F = felt; LLs = love languages. LL Mismatch reflects the misfit between one’s felt and their partner’s expressed love languages accumulated for all LLs; higher values indicate poorer fit. Hedges’ g is an effect size indicator endorsed for paired samples t-test (see King & Minium, 2003)

*p < .05,

**p < .01.

Table 2 shows that, despite the gender differences in felt LLs, men and women did not differ on the overall indicator of LL mismatch, i.e., inconsistency between one’s LL preferences and the partner’s ways of expressing love. The mismatch indicator does not capture directional biases; i.e., whether mismatch results from the partner providing a deficiency of acts of love, or providing more than the person wants. The raw differences were calculated by subtracting the partner’s expressed LL from the actor’s felt (preferred) level of LLs. Positive values indicate deficiency, while negative values signify excess. The analysis demonstrated that the female participants generally experienced a "lack" in terms of their preferred levels of receiving LLs, particularly in the case of Quality Time. On the other hand, male participants seemed to perceive or feel the affection to a lesser extent than their female partners reported expressing it, thus indicating an "excess". However, this was not the case for men’s Acts of Service LL.

Table 2 also shows the cross-gender correlations for LLs. Overall LL mismatch was quite substantially correlated across the couples. However, at the level of individual feelings and expressions, only two out of five LLs–acts of service and gifts–showed significant correlations (assortative mating). Thus, the least valued LLs showed assortative mating but the most valued did not, for both feelings and expressions.

Table 2 also provides descriptive statistics for the satisfaction and empathy variables. There were no significant gender differences in satisfaction, but consistent with other studies [e.g. 41 ] female participants’ advantage in empathy was observed across all the IRI dimensions. Of the IRI scales, only empathic concern showed a significant though small-magnitude correlation.

Hypotheses testing

In line with our first hypothesis, we obtained a significant negative association between relationship satisfaction and the LL mismatch indicator, in both men and women (see Table 3 ). Thus, the greater the discrepancy between preferred and felt LLs, the less satisfied the participants were with their relationships. Similar associations were observed for sexual satisfaction. The actor effects of LL mismatch were stronger in men, particularly for sexual satisfaction, for which the correlations were -.37 (men) and -.21 (women).

Note . Partner effects are shadowed in light grey. Assortative mating effects are provided in bold font.

Discrepancies in three LLs appeared to be particularly important for participants’ relationship and sexual satisfaction (see S1 Appendix ). Specifically, mismatch in Physical Touch, Words of Affirmation and Quality Time LLs separately were significantly associated with both male and female partners’ relationship satisfaction. Each of these love languages separately was also significantly associated with men’s sexual satisfaction. However, among female participants this association was only significant for the Physical Touch and Quality Time LLs, and their sexual satisfaction.

In addition, supporting the second hypothesis, partner effects proved significant–the respondent’s satisfaction with their relationship was associated with their partner’s LL mismatch. Partner effects were significant for both men and women. It may be as important to properly respond to the partner’s LL needs as to have one’s own LL preferences satisfied.

The third hypothesis was that cognitive and emotional facets of empathy would be associated with lower LL mismatch (see Table 3 ). The results indicated some significant actor effects in men. In particular, empathic concern ( r = -.27, p < . 01 ) and perspective taking ( r = -.34, p < . 01 ) components of empathy were higher in male individuals with smaller LL discrepancy, consistent with the hypothesis. However, this was not the case for female participants (see Table 3 ). Women whose partners scored higher on perspective taking ( r = -.26, p < . 01 ) and fantasy dimensions of IRI also showed lower LL mismatch. Our hypothesis regarding the links between empathy and LL matching was then only partially supported.

Contrary to the fourth hypothesis, IRI empathy dimensions proved generally unrelated to both relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction. The only two exceptions referred to men’s perspective taking (positive actor effect on sexual satisfaction in men) and personal distress (women’s distress was related to lower men’s relationship satisfaction). Although some scholars [e.g. 42 ] would emphasize that the absence of the association is not disqualifying the possibly of mediation, we found that in the present analysis there was no reason to test models in which empathy mediated effects of LL mismatch on satisfaction.

Finally, we compared actor and partner effects in LL mismatch–satisfaction associations (see Table 4 ). The bivariate associations suggested both effects. For example, for men, relationship satisfaction was related both to their own and the woman’s mismatch ( r s of -.40 and -.36). To conduct a more rigorous comparison, we ran regression analyses with both men and women LL mismatch as predictors, by gender and by satisfaction scale. At the first step, these analyses controlled for length of relationship, which may be a confound of satisfaction. The second step entered either men or women LL mismatch, and the final step included both mismatch variables. Such a procedure allowed to examine the added value of each step of the model and to test for the incremental validity of actor vs. partner effects. For all analyses, both men and women LL mismatch contributed significantly to the regressions when entered separately at Step 2, consistent with the bivariate results. For men, the final regressions at Step 3 showed independent effects of both mismatch variables; male relationship and sexual satisfaction depends on both actor and partner effects. For women, the final regression for relationship satisfaction was similar, but the female mismatch predictor fell just short of significance. Neither predictor was significant at Step 3 for sexual satisfaction. Women’s sexual satisfaction was more weakly predicted overall than the other outcome measures in these analyses (10% variance explained vs. 21–25%).

Note . Mismatching on LL = the degree of discrepancy between one’s preferred and partners’ expressed LL; lower values indicate a better match. RS = Relationship satisfaction, SS = Sexual Satisfaction.

† Compared with step 2a.

Overall, both actor and partner effects were found, providing further support for both the first and second hypotheses. We also tested for interactive effects of both partners’ LL matching indicators in all four analyses. No significant interaction effects were found, indicating that benefits of LL matching are additive.

In addition, we found that relationship length was more consistently associated with lower relationship satisfaction than with sexual satisfaction. However, no significant correlation between LL mismatch and relationship length was observed for both men ( r = .01, p = .90) and women ( r = .01, p = .91), which suggests that partners do not adjust their expressed LL to their counterpart’s preferences over time.

The present study sought to test empirically Chapman’s [ 1 ] hypothesis of LLs and their association with relationship and sexual satisfaction, as well as to explore whether matching on LLs is associated with empathy. This was accomplished by examining partners’ preferences for receiving and expressing love and assessing their relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction and four features of empathy.

Our study provides novel evidence in support of Chapman’s [ 1 ] notion that speaking one’s partner love language leads to higher quality relationships and create a positive emotional climate within the couple. In particular, the findings supported our major hypothesis that individuals whose partners express love in the way they prefer to receive it experience elevated relationship and sexual satisfaction. Previous work on sexual satisfaction has focused on discrepancies in desire as an influence on dissatisfaction [e.g. 43 ]. The present data suggest a broader role for discrepancy in displays of love that are not overtly sexual. The substantial positive correlations found between relationship and sexual satisfaction are consistent with previous research [ 44 ].

There were no significant gender differences in relationship and sexual satisfaction, nor in overall LL mismatch. However, women scored higher than men on four of the five “feeling” scales, indicating greater levels of need than men, with the largest effect sizes found for the desires for quality time and words of affirmation. This result contrasts with previous findings that men appear to rely more on their partner for social and emotional support than women do [ 45 , 46 ]. Possibly, men are more focused on fulfilling the social role of being in a committed relationship than specific affectionate behaviors, whereas women require more visible signs of love from their partner. Dykstra and Fokkema [ 46 ] suggest that women are more strongly oriented towards expressive and nurturing functions in marriage, implying greater awareness of whether their male partners is providing affirmations of love. Socialization to be emotionally independent may also contribute to men downplaying their needs for intimacy and affection [ 47 ]. Thus, the LL mismatch variable may not fully capture gender differences in the experience of relationships. Despite differences in the means of the “feeling” variables, our main predictions were supported for both male and female participants, implying that LLs function similarly in both genders.

In addition, findings supported the second hypothesis, that the actor’s satisfaction would be negatively associated with the partner’s LL mismatch. The regression analyses confirmed that both actor and LL mismatch predicted lower satisfaction. In the analyses of male respondents, both types of mismatches added significantly to the variance explained; findings in women showed a similar trend although not all effects reached significance, especially for sexual satisfaction. Partner effects tended to be slightly stronger predictors of relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction than the person’s own degree of matching. Previous findings in the field of positive psychology [e.g. 17 , 18 ] showing that acts of giving such as prosocial spending may potentially be more satisfying and lead to greater happiness, when compared to benefiting oneself. The partner effect is important in that it implies that LL matching is related to the actual quality of loving actions and communication between partners, and not merely individual perceptions. By contrast, higher emotional intelligence benefits the actor but not the partner, implying that this factor enhances actor perceptions of relationship quality, but it is not transmitted to the partner so that the benefit is internal to the actor [ 48 ].

Our findings were also in line with the previous research conducted with respect to other forms of behaviors that contribute to the quality of relationships. For instance, in two studies, relational maintenance strategies strongly predicted commitment, relational satisfaction, stability and loving others [ 49 , 50 ]. Among other maintenance strategies, the studies examined positivity (e.g., upbeat during conversations, avoiding criticism), assurance (e.g., expressions of love, affirming commitment), social networks (e.g., spending time with common friends) and sharing tasks (e.g., engaging in household chores), which also resemble some aspects of the Words of Affirmation, Quality Time or Acts of service LLs. In addition, romantic physical touch was previously found to be strongly correlated with the relationship and partner satisfaction [ 51 ]. Receiving gifts was yet another factor that was previously found to be positively associated with the relationship strength, perceived similarity, as well as evaluation of the relationships’ future potential [e.g. 52 , 53 ].

The regression analyses showed that LL–satisfaction associations remained robust with length of relationship controlled. Relationship length was negatively correlated with the relationship satisfaction, as in other studies [e.g. 54 , 55 ]. However, no meaningful association was observed between the length of relationship and matching on LLs, implying that people do not necessarily learn LLs of their partners with time. A focus on LLs might thus be of value in relationship counseling.

To our knowledge, this is the first study that found empirical support for LL hypothesis, contrasting with Egbert and Polk’s study [ 31 ], which found no significant association between matching on LLs and relationship satisfaction. This discrepancy in the results between the previous research and our findings may a consequence of the method used to assess LLs. In our analysis we treated felt and expressed LLs as continuous dimensional qualities rather than categorizing participants based on a single dominant LL. The method based on collapsing couple types (e.g. matched, partially matched, or mismatched) appeared to exaggerate differences in preferences for the five LLs. Dimensional assessment may be preferable to typologizing LLs. In the light of the present data, Chapman’s [ 1 ] claims that people tend to manifest one, dominant LL should be revised in favor of assessing multiple preferences for expressing and giving love using the five LLs.

We further hypothesized that empathy may be a factor that drives matching on LLs, which in turn leads to the higher relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction among romantic partners. We aimed to check whether people, who scored higher on empathy scale (perspective taking and empathetic concern subscales, in particular), would also be more successful in expressing love in the way their partners prefer to receive it. Nevertheless, we did not find support for this prediction. Although small significant associations between matching in LLs and some empathy subscales (namely: perspective taking and fantasy) were observed among men, analogical effects were not observed in women. It is possible that because men tend to be less empathetic than women [e.g. 56 , 57 ], the effect that high scores on empathy have on their relationships is stronger. However, the two significant associations in men did not transfer into significantly higher satisfaction among female partners.

Thus, benefits of LL matching on relationship and sexual satisfaction do not appear to be mediated by empathy. From a relationship counseling perspective, the implication is that training couples to improve matching may be addressed instrumentally as a skill to be acquired. For instance, such an intervention program could begin with measuring the level of discrepancies between partners in expressed vs. felt LLs, and providing both partners with ideas for specific behaviors that they could use to better meet the emotional needs of each other, as endorsed by Chapman [ 1 ]. Expressing love in the form desired may enhance relationship quality, even if the actor lacks cognitive and emotional insight into the partner’s needs.

There are several other strengths and limitations of the current study that should be noted. Our sample included participants from different age groups, cultural backgrounds and with various relationship duration, which might serve as an indicator of greater generalizability and external validity of the findings. On the other hand, the multicultural sample might have been a confounding variable, which has influenced the findings in an uncontrolled way. Future research could study bigger and more homogeneous samples. Although in the precent study we have controlled for relationship length, when testing our hypotheses, in the subsequent researches more could be done to examine the association between the relationship length and matching on LLs (e.g., controlling for log or inverse values of the relationship duration).

This study applied an online self-report survey method which results in several significant limitations as well as response biases related to social desirability [ 58 ]. Other potentially problematic issues associated with the present study design include increased possibility of condescending responses, participants’ self-selection, low response rate, submitting multiple responses, duration of the questionnaire, biased distribution channels as well as limited introspective ability of the respondent. At the same time, these methods could be associated with greater self-disclosure due to an online disinhibition effect [ 59 ].

The lack of suitable remuneration for the participants may have resulted in the response biases and nonprobability sampling. Other methods of assessment, as well as strategies aimed to prevent the response biases (i.e. adding several attention checks) and encouraging subjects providing reimbursement for participation are needed to eliminate the response and participation biases.

Another point that has to be addressed is the direction of causality. Even though the present results confirmed LL–satisfaction associations, future research should seek to establish the direction of causation between those factors. For instance, there is a possibility that romantic partners who are more satisfied in their current relationships are also more likely to give and appreciate LLs behaviors. Our study also did not assess other factors that might drive matching on LLs. The observed association could also be multi-directional or be mediated by another variable. For instance, emotional intelligence may contribute to romantic relationship satisfaction and quality [see 60 , 61 ]. Matching on LLs may also be a byproduct of assortative mating for personal characteristics like intelligence or personality type [ 62 ]. Other individual differences that were shown to influence relationship quality, such as time perspective or chronotype, could be also taken into account as potential mediators or confounders of the effects of LLs on relationship outcomes [e.g. 55 ; 63 ].

In conclusion, this study provides a unique contribution to the empirical literature on Chapman’s basic assumption of Five Love Languages [ 1 ]. Our findings suggest that people who better match each other’s preferences for LLs are more satisfied with their relationships and sexual life. Moreover, it appears that satisfying the needs of one’s partner has at least as strong an impact on the individual’s perceptions of relationship quality as receiving expression of love in the desired ways does. However, contrary to our hypothesis, small associations between matching on LLs and degree of empathy were observed only for some empathy subscales among male, but not female participants, and empathy was unrelated to satisfaction. Future work may explore other possible mediators of the LL matching–relationship satisfaction association.

The present findings, particularly the novel way to assess matching for LLs presented in the present paper, may be important for the subsequent research in the field of the romantic relationships. They also provide useful practical implications for marital and family counseling, as well as for laymen who aim to improve the quality of their relationship. Learning to recognize and react to one’s partners love needs may be an important skill for building relationship satisfaction in both partners.

Supporting information

S1 appendix, funding statement.

This work was supported by the University of Warsaw, from the funds awarded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in the form of a subsidy for the maintenance and development of research potential.

Data Availability

  • PLoS One. 2022; 17(6): e0269429.

Decision Letter 0

PONE-D-21-38702I love the way you love me: Responding to partner’s love language preferences boosts satisfaction in romantic heterosexual couplesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Stolarski,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please provide the following information/changes:

Methods: Questionnaires:. Provide information about the dates on which the questionnaire was applied on the average time spent on responses (discuss whether there could have been condescending responses and other response biases), and whether there were several attention checks. Clarify if there were payments to participants as a way to encourage participation.

In research in which self-response questionnaires are used, there could have been condescending responses and other response biases related to the social desirability.  The results of online surveys may be affected by bias due for example to low response rates, to a self-selection linked to the salience of a topic, the length of time required to complete the survey, the presentation of the questionnaire, the contact delivery modes, the use of pre-notifications and the presence of incentives. Furthermore, in online surveys, subjects often have greater self-disclosure. The results of the web-based surveys must consider all these aspects to be considered valid and reliable.  Moreover, about bias in participation, note the possible self-selection bias and the nonprobability sampling used to select the participants. See for example Van de Mortel, T.F. Faking it: Social desirability response bias in self-report research. Aust. J. Adv. Nurs. 2008, 25,40. Please provide information about this topic on methods section.

Did you have any missing data or did everyone answer all the questions? If you did have missing data, how did you treat the "missingness"?

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 19 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at  gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sonia Brito-Costa, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please change "female” or "male" to "woman” or "man" as appropriate, when used as a noun (see for instance https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender ).

3. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please clarify whether consent was written or verbal.  If verbal, please also specify: 1) whether the ethics committee approved the verbal consent procedure, 2) why written consent could not be obtained, and 3) how verbal consent was recorded. If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent or parental consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

5. Your abstract cannot contain citations. Please only include citations in the body text of the manuscript, and ensure that they remain in ascending numerical order on first mention.

6. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

5. Review Comments to the Author

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool,  https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at  gro.solp@serugif . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Author response to Decision Letter 0

17 May 2022

Thank you for your email dated April 5th, 2022 that addresses the points raised during the review process. We highly appreciate the Reviewer’s generous comments on the manuscript.

We have carefully reviewed them and revised the manuscript to address the following concerns, as well as the Journal Requirements.

We have addressed the editorial points as follows:

ad.1: “Provide information about the dates on which the questionnaire was applied on the average time spent on responses (discuss whether there could have been condescending responses and other response biases), and whether there were several attention checks”.

The questionnaire was applied over the period between October 2018 to March 2019. The subjects spent an average of 23 minutes responding to the questionnaire.

We have used the reverse wording items for each inventory to screen out careless respondents. No additional attention checks were used in the survey.

We are aware that self-response questionnaires tend to be affected by the response biases. We have clarified it in the Methods section and proposed an additional future research suggestion to address the potential flaws.

The information is now provided in the manuscript in lines 236-239, and 562-569.

ad. 2: “Clarify if there were payments to participants as a way to encourage participation”.

No, the subjects participated in the survey voluntary and were not paid for their participation. It is now clarified in the Method section and addressed as a potential limitation in the Discussion.

The information is now provided in the manuscript in lines 237-238, and 570-574.

ad. 3: “In research in which self-response questionnaires are used, there could have been condescending responses and other response biases related to the social desirability…Please provide information about this topic on methods section”.

We have provided information on the potential biases in response and participation in our survey, including the possibility of the condescending responses. It is now addressed in the Method and Discussion sections.

The information is now provided in the manuscript in lines 562-574, and addressed in 238-244.

ad. 4: “Did you have any missing data or did everyone answer all the questions? If you did have missing data, how did you treat the "missingness"?”

Yes. Ten couples were discarded from the study due to significant amount of missing information for one or both partners. When one question was missed (i.e. not scored) by the respondent, the average over available items was calculated and multiplied with the number of items in the questionnaire to replace the missing value.

The information is now provided in the manuscript in lines 215-222.

Formal suggestion: Please change "female” or "male" to "woman” or "man" as appropriate, when used as a noun

This point is now addressed across the entire manuscript; the only remaining uses of “male” and “female” are when these words are used as adjectives.

We have attached a marked-up copy that highlights changes made to the original version, as well as unmarked version of our revised manuscript. If you have any further questions or suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact us directly.

Submitted filename: Response-to-Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

23 May 2022

PONE-D-21-38702R1

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ , click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

Sónia Brito-Costa, Ph.D.

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Acceptance letter

27 May 2022

Dear Dr. Stolarski:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp .

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Sónia Brito-Costa

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

I love the way you love me: Responding to partner’s love language preferences boosts satisfaction in romantic heterosexual couples

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Doctoral School of Social Sciences, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

ORCID logo

Roles Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

Roles Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Orlando, FL, United States of America

  • Olha Mostova, 
  • Maciej Stolarski, 
  • Gerald Matthews

PLOS

  • Published: June 22, 2022
  • https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429
  • Peer Review
  • Reader Comments

Table 1

Chapman’s Love Languages hypothesis claims that (1) people vary in the ways they prefer to receive and express affection and (2) romantic partners who communicate their feelings congruent with their partner’s preferences experience greater relationship quality. The author proposes five distinct preferences and tendencies for expressing love, including: Acts of Service, Physical Touch, Words of Affirmation, Quality Time and Gifts. In the present study partners ( N = 100 heterosexual couples) completed measures assessing their preferences and behavioral tendencies for a) expressions of love and b) reception of signs of affection, for each of the five proposed “love languages”. Relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction and empathy were also assessed. The degree of the within-couple mismatch was calculated separately for each individual based on the discrepancies between the person’s felt (preferred) and their partner’s expressed love language. The joint mismatch indicator was a sum of discrepancies across the five love languages. Matching on love languages was associated with both relationship and sexual satisfaction. In particular, people who expressed their affection in the way their partners preferred to receive it, experienced greater satisfaction with their relationships and were more sexually satisfied compared to those who met their partner’s needs to lesser extent. Empathy was expected to be a critical factor for better understanding of and responding to the partner’s needs. Results provided some support for this hypothesis among male but not female participants.

Citation: 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

Editor: Sónia Brito-Costa, Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra: Instituto Politecnico de Coimbra, PORTUGAL

Received: December 7, 2021; Accepted: May 22, 2022; Published: June 22, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Mostova et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files

Funding: This work was supported by the University of Warsaw, from the funds awarded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in the form of a subsidy for the maintenance and development of research potential.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Everyone has their own preferences for expressing and receiving romantic feelings. Based on his clinical observations Chapman [ 1 ] identified five distinct ways in which people show and want to receive the signs of commitment. He labeled them ‘love languages’ (LLs) and proposed division into the following domains: 1) words of affirmation (verbal compliments, or words of appreciation), 2) quality time (time spent together implying focused attention of both partners), 3) receiving gifts (visual symbols of affection), 4) acts of service (helping mate with necessary tasks) and 5) physical touch (from holding hands to sexual intercourse).

Chapman [ 1 ] used a metaphor of a ‘love tank’, which reflected people’s emotional need to feel loved. The ‘love tank’ of both partners is filled when each of them expresses the affection in a way another one prefers to receive it. According to Chapman and Southern, “once you identify and learn to speak your spouse’s primary love language…you will have discovered the key to a long-lasting, loving marriage” [ 2 , p. 18]. Thus, the author is convinced that conducting interventions designed to foster better understanding of the partner’s LLs, as well as educating people on how to put this knowledge into practice would lead to a greater relationship maintenance and satisfaction.

People often speak and understand their primary LLs, but they may “learn a secondary love language” [ 2 , p.14]. For example, the husband may be aware of his wife’s desire to receive compliments–words of affirmation, although he himself prefers being physically touched. Therefore, LLs can be divided into those in which people tend to communicate to their partners (expressed love language) and those they prefer to receive in order to keep their emotional ‘love tank’ full (felt love language).

The assumption of basic and fundamental need for love and affection is well-established and empirically supported [ 3 – 5 ]. Multiple research findings also support the notion that human’s need for love and affection boosts both personal well-being [e.g. 6 ] and satisfaction in various types of relationships [e.g. 7 , 8 ].

Research has also addressed the effects of similarity between partners on relationship outcomes. It is well established that similarity and convergence of different types in romantic partners promotes greater relationship satisfaction. For example, similarity in communication values, such as ego support or conflict management, has been shown to promote attraction and greater relationship satisfaction in couples which described themselves as ‘seriously involved’ [ 9 ].

Gonzaga and colleagues [ 10 ] also found that similarity and convergence in the personality between partners promotes similarity in their shared emotional experiences and relationship quality. Yet another study demonstrated that romantic couples who converge in their emotional experiences manifest greater relationship cohesion, while their relationships are less likely to dissolve [ 11 ]. In another study perceived similarity in text messaging, including frequency of initiating a text message exchange and expressing affection, was associated with greater relationship satisfaction [ 12 ].

Sexual satisfaction is another broadly-studied concept in the research on couples and romantic relationships. Various studies found an association between sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction [ 13 , 14 ]. For instance, in a study conducted on 387 couples, sexual satisfaction and communication independently predicted the relationship satisfaction [ 14 ]. Thus, romantic partners who are having difficulties communicating, but are at the same time sexually satisfied, will experience greater marital satisfaction. Similarity in personality traits between marital partners also proved to predict sexual satisfaction [ 15 ] In another study, de Jong and Reis [ 16 ] found that complementarity, but not similarity, in sexual preferences predicted sexual satisfaction, consistent with LL hypothesis. Being aware of one’s partner’s preferences and acting accordingly may increase the couple’s sexual satisfaction.

The act of giving may potentially be more satisfying than benefiting oneself. One study [ 17 ] found that spending more of one’s income on others predicts greater happiness than spending money on themselves. Prosocial spending is positively correlated with greater happiness in both poor and rich countries and even recalling the past instance of spending money on others has a causal impact on happiness [ 18 ]. Thus, it is possible that helping others to match their needs produces a greater emotional benefit than receiving and caring for oneself. Thus, compatibility in LLs may benefit the person as a giver, as well as a receiver.

Empathy is often believed to play a crucial role in relationships of various kinds and to be a key component of effective communication. It can be defined as the “reactions of one individual to the observed experiences of another” [ 19 , p.113]. Empathy is primarily related to one’s ability to understand and share the emotional experiences of others [e.g., 20 ]. According to Davis [ 19 , 21 ], empathy can be divided into four domains, including: empathic concern, personal distress, perspective taking and fantasy.

Research demonstrates a positive relation between a partner’s empathic accuracy and their degree of relationship satisfaction [ 22 , 23 ], when it is present in mundane and nonconflictual settings. Various studies have also found that people with higher levels of empathy are better in detecting their partners’ needs and providing them with higher-quality advice and instrumental support [ 24 – 26 ]. On the other hand, subjective perceptions of empathy may be more important for relationship satisfaction than empathic accuracy [ 27 ], i.e., the objective ability to determine one’s partners views.

Empathic accuracy implies accurate perception of people’s mental states, including thoughts and feelings [ 24 ] people that are more proficient in mentalizing may also be more skillful in understanding their partner’s needs and preferences. Such an awareness may in turn increase the likelihood of fulfilling such needs and make them choose and adjust their behavior more consciously. Thus, empathy may support congruence in LLs. Although there were some attempts to examine the factors that may moderate the relationship satisfaction when partners are misaligned in their LLs [e.g. 28 ], to our knowledge, none of the previous studies have examined the potential mediators that may drive LL matching, leading to elevated satisfaction. An empathic individual may be both more effective in giving the form of love desired by the partner, and in guiding the partner towards understanding their own needs.

Despite the great popularity that Chapman’s work had gained worldwide among both clinicians and general public, the concept of LLs remains relatively unstudied. Egbert and Polk [ 29 ] developed the Love Languages Scale based on concepts found in Chapman’s [ 1 ] LLs and suggested that the five-factor LL model had some psychometric validity. A confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated significant relationship between the five LLs and Stafford, Dainton, and Haas’ [ 30 ] relational maintenance typology, thus supporting their construct validity.

In one version of the scale participants responded about how they tend to feel love. To remain consistent with the literature we followed the term ‘felt LL’ that was used in Egbert and Polk’s [ 31 ] study to infer the preferred way of receiving love from one’s partner. However, it should be noted that two forms of the LL scale provide the data on what makes people feel loved without directly examining what is being preferred, which might be a potential conceptual problem with the LL measure.

Another study utilized measures of the autonomic nervous system, such as skin conductance and respiration rate [ 32 ]. First, 89 participants were asked to complete Chapman’s LLs questionnaire. Next, their psychophysiological responses (skin conductance, heart rate and pulse rate) were measured, while they were listening to the recorded imagery scripts (imaginal exposure and guided imagery) describing each of the LLs. It was found that participant’ arousal level increased when they were listening to their dominating or preferred LL. Specifically, a significant association was found between hearing the imagery script of their primary LL and person’s heart rate and skin conductance, although no significant increase was found in the respiration rate. In addition, good internal consistency and reliability was reported for the scale measurement of the preferred LL [ 33 ].

Other aspects of Chapman’s [ 1 ] claim have not been supported. Egbert and Polk [ 31 ] tested 84 university student couples, who had been together for at least two months. The aims was to check whether partners well-matched in their reported preferences and expressions of LLs reported greater relationship quality. They were grouped into three categories including matched, mismatched and partially matched; however, no significant effect of matching on relationship quality was found. According to later research [ 28 ] sharing the same primary (expressed) LL again did not result in relationship satisfaction. However, the researchers found that female participants’ self-regulation significantly improved partners’ satisfaction when their LLs were misaligned.

Veale [ 34 ] aimed to test whether becoming aware of one’s partner’s preferred LL would result in behavioral adaptation in the absence of any identified external motivation. First, the researcher checked whether participants felt that the love expression used by their partner was correctly identified. Second, descriptions of the LL profiles and category membership were provided to each participant, and the couples were given a brief overview of the love expression behavior related to each of five categories. Additionally, the study considered whether LL expression knowledge would influence participants’ emotional state and behavior, as well as whether efforts to make behavioral accommodation would be noticed by their partners. The research found no statistically significant difference between pre- and posttest means for any of the categories, although in general respondents agreed that their LL was correctly identified. It should be noted that LLs in the study were evaluated categorically using Chapman’s Love Language Profile, which shares the assumption that people have one dominating LL that they both feel and express the most.

The present study: Aims and hypotheses

Chapman’s [ 1 ] basic claim is that people who “talk” their partner’s LL are more satisfied in their relationships, but empirical support for the LL hypothesis remains equivocal. In the present study, we aimed to extend previous findings [e.g. 31 ] by adopting a novel, continuous approach to measure match/mismatch between partners’ LLs. Treating LL mismatch as a continuous dimension may preserve information on level of mismatch that is lost by assessing it on a categorical basis, and provide a more sensitive test of its relationships with other variables. First, we aimed to check whether romantic partners who receive affection in ways consistent with their partner’s style of expressing love report higher relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction. We asked people separately about when they feel loved the most (i.e., preference for receiving love) and how they prefer to express affirmation of love. The aim was to assess the partner’s match not only in term of their dominant love language, but to also take into account possible that one’s preferences for receiving love may differ from one’s style of expressing and communicating love.

Second, we aimed to distinguish “actor” effects (mismatch lowers one’s own satisfaction) and “partner” effects (mismatch lowers the other person’s satisfaction). Chapman’s [ 1 ] hypothesis emphasizes the former, but there may also be a reciprocal effect, i.e., if my partner feels s/he is not receiving the love affirmations s/he wants, the partner’s deficit in feeling loved may lower my satisfaction. This approach provided a full picture of the interplay between both partners’ expressed and felt LLs, contrary to Chapman’s assumption that people give and feel only one dominating LL.

We aimed to test four hypotheses:

  • Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction are negatively associated with the mismatch between the person’s felt and their partner’s expressed LLs (actor effect). This is the central claim of Chapman [ 1 ]. His account of the LLs hypothesis does not imply that the importance of LLs varies for men and women, but we tested for possible gender differences on an exploratory basis.
  • Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction are negatively associated with the mismatch between the person’s expressed and their partner’s felt LLs (partner effect). The partner’s feelings of not being adequately loved may influence actor satisfaction.
  • Matching in LLs is associated with empathy levels, given that empathy is likely to support adaptation to the partner’s needs. Given that empathy is a multifaceted construct, we hypothesized that its most adaptive facets, i.e., empathic concern (emotional empathy) and perspective taking (cognitive empathy), would be the aspects related to LLs.
  • Empathy is associated with higher relationship and sexual satisfaction, as in multiple previous studies [e.g. 35 – 37 ]. We also anticipated testing the mediating role of empathy in the LL mismatch–satisfaction association, contingent on support for the third and fourth hypotheses.

Participants

The working sample consisted of 100 heterosexual couples (100 men, 100 women), who were sexually active with their partners. All the participants were in a current romantic relationship for at least 6 months. Relationship length varied between 6 months and 24 years ( M = 3.5 years). The initial sample consisted of N = 110, but data from 10 couples was discarded, as only one partner have completed the questionnaire or there was a significant amount of incomplete or missing information for one or both partners. When an individual item was not scored by the respondent, the average over available items was calculated and multiplyed with the number of items in the questionnaire to replace the missing value.

Age of the participants ranged from 17 to 58 (mean: 27.34). Among male participants age varied from 18 to 58 with a mean value of 28.58 ( SD = 9.68). Female age ranged from 17 to 57 with an average value of 25.10 ( SD = 7.89).

The sample was culturally diverse and it included representatives of 31 nationalities. The most commonly occurring nationalities were Ukrainians (N = 67), Poles (N = 24), Belgians (N = 15), Russians (N = 13), Americans (N = 12) and Swedes (N = 12). Majority of both male and female participants indicated their marital status as never married ( n = 116), followed by married ( n = 63), “other” ( n = 13) and divorced ( n = 8).

The participants were recruited using social media and personal connections. The online questionnaire was distributed to volunteers that provided written consent and reported being in the romantic relationships with their current partner for at least 6 months and were either native speakers of English and/or communicated in English to each other, or reported having sufficient fluency to freely and effortlessly communicate with native speakers (i.e., at least B2 level). The data were collected between October 2018 and March 2019. The subjects spent an average of 23 minutes responding to the questionnaire and were not rewarded. The attention check items with reverse wording were used respectively for each inventory to prevent incomplete and low-effort answers.

All participants gave their informed consent to participate in the study of “communication and satisfaction among couples” that is intended to gather information about various aspects of romantic relationships. They were also informed that their answers will not be assessed individually and that they will not receive any feedback on their results as a couple). We asked participants about the relationship’s length and the time since the first sexual intercourse with a current partner to ensure that the participants were sexually active with their current partners, as well as to eliminate the possibility of the ‘honeymoon effect’ [ 38 ]. We also asked both partners about their fluency in English language. Couples were asked not to discuss or compare their results with each other.

Materials and procedure

LLs were assessed using two methods. The first was the forced-choice method used by Egbert and Polk [ 31 ], while the second one included two forms of a LL scale (LLS) requiring independent ratings of preferences, which was developed and validated by Egbert and Polk [ 29 ].

First, participant received a forced-choice LL measure [ 31 ] including the following instructions: “I feel the most loved when my partner: (1) physically touches me (i.e., gives a hug, gives a kiss, holds my hand, touches me), (2) helps me out (i.e., running an errand, finishing a chore for me, helping me out, helping to keep things cleaned up), (3) spends quality time with me (i.e., really listening, doing something we both like, engages in quality conversation, spending free time), (4) says encouraging words (i.e., compliments, expresses appreciation for me, gives me credit for something I did, gives me positive comments), and (5) gives me gifts (i.e., a thoughtful birthday gift, a greeting card, a present for no special reason, a gift after being away)”. This item served only for the purpose of its later comparison to the two versions of LLS in order to check for the consistency of participant’s responses. Thus, this tool was not used as the main indicator of couples’ LLs in the subsequent analysis.

The LLS assessment [ 29 ] involved four behavioral indicators representing each of the ways to feel and express affection. In the first form of the LLS participants were asked to rate the extent to which they tend to express (or give ) love to their partners by engaging in the listed behaviors. The second form of the LLS included the same list of behaviors, but this time participants were asked to rate the extent to which each expression makes them feel loved by their partners. Thus, each version of LLS consisted of 20 self-report items, including four items per each of the five LLs described by Chapman [ 1 ], e.g., “I tend to express my feeling to my partner by telling that I appreciate him/her”. The items were rated using a five-point Likert-type scale to assess the extent of agreement on a scale of 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ). Egbert and Polk [ 29 ] reported sufficient construct validity and reliability of the questionnaire in assessing LLs.

As both partners responded to the two versions of LLS, we obtained information about how they tend to express and prefer to feel love. We could then calculate the discrepancy between these measurements. Thus, the degree to which one’s (partner) preferred to feel love (e.g., when holding hands), as rated on the Likert scale, differed from the second partner’s (actor) degree of expressing love in this way (e.g., by holding hands) served as an indicator of extent to which the respondents felt that their partners were meeting needs in terms of LLs. The sum of the discrepancy scores on the five individual LL components then reflected the degree of match or mismatch.

To remain consistent with the literature we used the term ‘felt LL’ to infer the preferred way of receiving love from one’s partner, as we were following the term used by in the previous studies. However, it should be noted that LLS measure provides the data on what makes people feel loved without directly examining what is being preferred, which might be a potential conceptual problem with the LL measure proposed by Egbert and Polk [ 29 ].

In particular, a value of 0 indicated a complete match between the way the respondent preferred to feel and how their partner expressed love (e.g., participant X rates preference for being complimented as 5, and X’s partner rates his/her expression of compliments as 5). A negative value meant that one’s partner does not express a form of love to the extent desired (e.g. participant X rates preference for being complimented as 5, and X’s partner rates his/her expression of compliments as 1). A positive value indicated that one’s partner overly expressed a form of love that the participant did not require to such an extent (e.g. participant X rates preference for being complimented as 1, and X’s partner rates his/her expression of compliments as 5). Because our interest was in overall mismatch, we converted all discrepancy scores to absolute values and computed the item-level sum of the four scores for each LL. We then summed these discrepancy scores for each individual, to provide an overall index of mismatch between one’s preferences for being loved and partner’s ways of expressing love, based on the 20 item-level discrepancy scores. Our primary outcome measure was thus overall LL mismatch; higher scores indicated greater mismatch. The internal consistency of the calculated sum of discrepancies in our study amounted to Cronbach’s α = .61 for male and α = .70 for female participants.

In addition, the internal consistency was confirmed to be acceptable or good for all of the five LLs scales before they were combined to create the discrepancy scores. In particular, the results suggested a good fit for each of the five expressed LLs: Acts of Service (α = .70), Physical Touch (α = .89), Words of Affirmation (α = .79), Quality Time (α = .78) and Gifts (α = .77). The internal consistency was also confirmed for the five felt LLs scales: Acts of service (α = .74), Physical Touch (α = .85), Words of Affirmation (α = .82), Quality Time (α = .75) and Gifts (α = .84).

Participants’ sexual satisfaction was assessed using the Index of Sexual Satisfaction questionnaire [ISS, 39 ]. The scale consists of 25-Likert-type items (e.g., “I enjoy the sex techniques that my partner likes or uses”, or “I feel that my sex life is boring”) and demonstrated high internal consistency among men (α = .91) and women (α = .92). The participants rated the statements on a 7-point Likert-type, where 1 indicated none of the time and 7 indicated all of the time . The items that implied lower sexual satisfaction (e.g., “I feel that my sex life is boring”) were reversed scored and the total score was calculated as a sum of all item scores. Higher scores indicated greater level of sexual satisfaction.

Relationship satisfaction was measured using the Relationship Assessment Scale [RAS, 40 ], one of the most frequently used questionnaires used for studying relationship quality. RAS consists of seven items measuring general relationship satisfaction (e.g., “To what extent has your relationship met your original expectations?”). Respondents are asked to rate each statement using a 5-point scale. High internal consistency of the measure was confirmed for male (α = .85) and female (α = .87) participants.

Interpersonal Reactivity Index [IRI; 19 ] was applied as a multi-dimensional assessment of empathy. This widely used self-report metric comprises 28 items. The participants are asked to rate their response on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (“ does not describe me well” ) to 5 (“ describes me very well” ). IRI consists of four distinct subscales, including: 1) perspective taking–the tendency to spontaneously adopt the psychological point of view of others; 2) fantasy–indicating tendencies to transpose oneself imaginatively into the feelings and actions of fictitious characters in books, movies, and plays; 3) empathic concern–assessing other-oriented feelings of sympathy and concern for unfortunate others; and 4) personal distress–measuring self-oriented feelings of personal anxiety and unease in tense interpersonal settings.

We hypothesized that perspective taking and empathic concern scales would be negatively associated with LL mismatch, and positively related to satisfaction measures. Fantasy did not appear directly relevant to LLs, whereas personal distress might be positively associated with mismatch. Internal consistencies were acceptable for all four subscales among male subjects, including perspective taking (α = .74), fantasy (α = .77), empathic concern (α = .70), and personal distress (α = .70). In female participants the indicators were acceptable for the empathic concern (α = .80) and fantasy (α = .75) subscales, but poorer for perspective taking (α = .62) and personal distress (α = .60).

Preliminary analyses

This section reports descriptive statistics for the study variables, as well as tests for gender differences. We also tested within-couple correlations to investigate “assortative mating”; the extent to which people partner with those of similar characteristics to themselves.

Table 1 shows LL preferences on the forced-choice measure. Quality time was the most frequently declared LL, followed by physical touch, acts of service, words of affirmation and receiving gifts. In accordance with prior research [ 31 ], there was no significant association between gender and participants’ responses in the forced-choice LL measurement, χ 2 (1) = 14.85, p = .25 (see Table 1 ).

thumbnail

  • PPT PowerPoint slide
  • PNG larger image
  • TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429.t001

Table 2 shows means and SDs for the continuous scores. The rank-ordering of means differed a little from the forced-choice data, in that Physical Touch was the highest-rated preference, in both genders, although Quality Time was also highly rated. Also, contrasting with the forced-choice data, women obtained higher mean scores in four out of five LLs dimensions–all except for acts of service. It seems that women generally preferred to receive love from their partners more intensely than men did (see Table 2 ). Table 2 also shows data for ratings of expressed love. The order of preferences was similar to that for feeling preferences. Participants tended to express love to their partners primarily by physically touching them, followed by spending quality time together, saying words of affirmation, doing acts of service and giving gifts. No significant sex difference was observed for any but one expressed LL: female participants scored slightly higher than male participants in the expression of quality time LL.

thumbnail

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429.t002

Table 2 shows that, despite the gender differences in felt LLs, men and women did not differ on the overall indicator of LL mismatch, i.e., inconsistency between one’s LL preferences and the partner’s ways of expressing love. The mismatch indicator does not capture directional biases; i.e., whether mismatch results from the partner providing a deficiency of acts of love, or providing more than the person wants. The raw differences were calculated by subtracting the partner’s expressed LL from the actor’s felt (preferred) level of LLs. Positive values indicate deficiency, while negative values signify excess. The analysis demonstrated that the female participants generally experienced a "lack" in terms of their preferred levels of receiving LLs, particularly in the case of Quality Time. On the other hand, male participants seemed to perceive or feel the affection to a lesser extent than their female partners reported expressing it, thus indicating an "excess". However, this was not the case for men’s Acts of Service LL.

Table 2 also shows the cross-gender correlations for LLs. Overall LL mismatch was quite substantially correlated across the couples. However, at the level of individual feelings and expressions, only two out of five LLs–acts of service and gifts–showed significant correlations (assortative mating). Thus, the least valued LLs showed assortative mating but the most valued did not, for both feelings and expressions.

Table 2 also provides descriptive statistics for the satisfaction and empathy variables. There were no significant gender differences in satisfaction, but consistent with other studies [e.g. 41 ] female participants’ advantage in empathy was observed across all the IRI dimensions. Of the IRI scales, only empathic concern showed a significant though small-magnitude correlation.

Hypotheses testing

In line with our first hypothesis, we obtained a significant negative association between relationship satisfaction and the LL mismatch indicator, in both men and women (see Table 3 ). Thus, the greater the discrepancy between preferred and felt LLs, the less satisfied the participants were with their relationships. Similar associations were observed for sexual satisfaction. The actor effects of LL mismatch were stronger in men, particularly for sexual satisfaction, for which the correlations were -.37 (men) and -.21 (women).

thumbnail

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429.t003

Discrepancies in three LLs appeared to be particularly important for participants’ relationship and sexual satisfaction (see S1 Appendix ). Specifically, mismatch in Physical Touch, Words of Affirmation and Quality Time LLs separately were significantly associated with both male and female partners’ relationship satisfaction. Each of these love languages separately was also significantly associated with men’s sexual satisfaction. However, among female participants this association was only significant for the Physical Touch and Quality Time LLs, and their sexual satisfaction.

In addition, supporting the second hypothesis, partner effects proved significant–the respondent’s satisfaction with their relationship was associated with their partner’s LL mismatch. Partner effects were significant for both men and women. It may be as important to properly respond to the partner’s LL needs as to have one’s own LL preferences satisfied.

The third hypothesis was that cognitive and emotional facets of empathy would be associated with lower LL mismatch (see Table 3 ). The results indicated some significant actor effects in men. In particular, empathic concern ( r = -.27, p < . 01 ) and perspective taking ( r = -.34, p < . 01 ) components of empathy were higher in male individuals with smaller LL discrepancy, consistent with the hypothesis. However, this was not the case for female participants (see Table 3 ). Women whose partners scored higher on perspective taking ( r = -.26, p < . 01 ) and fantasy dimensions of IRI also showed lower LL mismatch. Our hypothesis regarding the links between empathy and LL matching was then only partially supported.

Contrary to the fourth hypothesis, IRI empathy dimensions proved generally unrelated to both relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction. The only two exceptions referred to men’s perspective taking (positive actor effect on sexual satisfaction in men) and personal distress (women’s distress was related to lower men’s relationship satisfaction). Although some scholars [e.g. 42 ] would emphasize that the absence of the association is not disqualifying the possibly of mediation, we found that in the present analysis there was no reason to test models in which empathy mediated effects of LL mismatch on satisfaction.

Finally, we compared actor and partner effects in LL mismatch–satisfaction associations (see Table 4 ). The bivariate associations suggested both effects. For example, for men, relationship satisfaction was related both to their own and the woman’s mismatch ( r s of -.40 and -.36). To conduct a more rigorous comparison, we ran regression analyses with both men and women LL mismatch as predictors, by gender and by satisfaction scale. At the first step, these analyses controlled for length of relationship, which may be a confound of satisfaction. The second step entered either men or women LL mismatch, and the final step included both mismatch variables. Such a procedure allowed to examine the added value of each step of the model and to test for the incremental validity of actor vs. partner effects. For all analyses, both men and women LL mismatch contributed significantly to the regressions when entered separately at Step 2, consistent with the bivariate results. For men, the final regressions at Step 3 showed independent effects of both mismatch variables; male relationship and sexual satisfaction depends on both actor and partner effects. For women, the final regression for relationship satisfaction was similar, but the female mismatch predictor fell just short of significance. Neither predictor was significant at Step 3 for sexual satisfaction. Women’s sexual satisfaction was more weakly predicted overall than the other outcome measures in these analyses (10% variance explained vs. 21–25%).

thumbnail

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429.t004

Overall, both actor and partner effects were found, providing further support for both the first and second hypotheses. We also tested for interactive effects of both partners’ LL matching indicators in all four analyses. No significant interaction effects were found, indicating that benefits of LL matching are additive.

In addition, we found that relationship length was more consistently associated with lower relationship satisfaction than with sexual satisfaction. However, no significant correlation between LL mismatch and relationship length was observed for both men ( r = .01, p = .90) and women ( r = .01, p = .91), which suggests that partners do not adjust their expressed LL to their counterpart’s preferences over time.

The present study sought to test empirically Chapman’s [ 1 ] hypothesis of LLs and their association with relationship and sexual satisfaction, as well as to explore whether matching on LLs is associated with empathy. This was accomplished by examining partners’ preferences for receiving and expressing love and assessing their relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction and four features of empathy.

Our study provides novel evidence in support of Chapman’s [ 1 ] notion that speaking one’s partner love language leads to higher quality relationships and create a positive emotional climate within the couple. In particular, the findings supported our major hypothesis that individuals whose partners express love in the way they prefer to receive it experience elevated relationship and sexual satisfaction. Previous work on sexual satisfaction has focused on discrepancies in desire as an influence on dissatisfaction [e.g. 43 ]. The present data suggest a broader role for discrepancy in displays of love that are not overtly sexual. The substantial positive correlations found between relationship and sexual satisfaction are consistent with previous research [ 44 ].

There were no significant gender differences in relationship and sexual satisfaction, nor in overall LL mismatch. However, women scored higher than men on four of the five “feeling” scales, indicating greater levels of need than men, with the largest effect sizes found for the desires for quality time and words of affirmation. This result contrasts with previous findings that men appear to rely more on their partner for social and emotional support than women do [ 45 , 46 ]. Possibly, men are more focused on fulfilling the social role of being in a committed relationship than specific affectionate behaviors, whereas women require more visible signs of love from their partner. Dykstra and Fokkema [ 46 ] suggest that women are more strongly oriented towards expressive and nurturing functions in marriage, implying greater awareness of whether their male partners is providing affirmations of love. Socialization to be emotionally independent may also contribute to men downplaying their needs for intimacy and affection [ 47 ]. Thus, the LL mismatch variable may not fully capture gender differences in the experience of relationships. Despite differences in the means of the “feeling” variables, our main predictions were supported for both male and female participants, implying that LLs function similarly in both genders.

In addition, findings supported the second hypothesis, that the actor’s satisfaction would be negatively associated with the partner’s LL mismatch. The regression analyses confirmed that both actor and LL mismatch predicted lower satisfaction. In the analyses of male respondents, both types of mismatches added significantly to the variance explained; findings in women showed a similar trend although not all effects reached significance, especially for sexual satisfaction. Partner effects tended to be slightly stronger predictors of relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction than the person’s own degree of matching. Previous findings in the field of positive psychology [e.g. 17 , 18 ] showing that acts of giving such as prosocial spending may potentially be more satisfying and lead to greater happiness, when compared to benefiting oneself. The partner effect is important in that it implies that LL matching is related to the actual quality of loving actions and communication between partners, and not merely individual perceptions. By contrast, higher emotional intelligence benefits the actor but not the partner, implying that this factor enhances actor perceptions of relationship quality, but it is not transmitted to the partner so that the benefit is internal to the actor [ 48 ].

Our findings were also in line with the previous research conducted with respect to other forms of behaviors that contribute to the quality of relationships. For instance, in two studies, relational maintenance strategies strongly predicted commitment, relational satisfaction, stability and loving others [ 49 , 50 ]. Among other maintenance strategies, the studies examined positivity (e.g., upbeat during conversations, avoiding criticism), assurance (e.g., expressions of love, affirming commitment), social networks (e.g., spending time with common friends) and sharing tasks (e.g., engaging in household chores), which also resemble some aspects of the Words of Affirmation, Quality Time or Acts of service LLs. In addition, romantic physical touch was previously found to be strongly correlated with the relationship and partner satisfaction [ 51 ]. Receiving gifts was yet another factor that was previously found to be positively associated with the relationship strength, perceived similarity, as well as evaluation of the relationships’ future potential [e.g. 52 , 53 ].

The regression analyses showed that LL–satisfaction associations remained robust with length of relationship controlled. Relationship length was negatively correlated with the relationship satisfaction, as in other studies [e.g. 54 , 55 ]. However, no meaningful association was observed between the length of relationship and matching on LLs, implying that people do not necessarily learn LLs of their partners with time. A focus on LLs might thus be of value in relationship counseling.

To our knowledge, this is the first study that found empirical support for LL hypothesis, contrasting with Egbert and Polk’s study [ 31 ], which found no significant association between matching on LLs and relationship satisfaction. This discrepancy in the results between the previous research and our findings may a consequence of the method used to assess LLs. In our analysis we treated felt and expressed LLs as continuous dimensional qualities rather than categorizing participants based on a single dominant LL. The method based on collapsing couple types (e.g. matched, partially matched, or mismatched) appeared to exaggerate differences in preferences for the five LLs. Dimensional assessment may be preferable to typologizing LLs. In the light of the present data, Chapman’s [ 1 ] claims that people tend to manifest one, dominant LL should be revised in favor of assessing multiple preferences for expressing and giving love using the five LLs.

We further hypothesized that empathy may be a factor that drives matching on LLs, which in turn leads to the higher relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction among romantic partners. We aimed to check whether people, who scored higher on empathy scale (perspective taking and empathetic concern subscales, in particular), would also be more successful in expressing love in the way their partners prefer to receive it. Nevertheless, we did not find support for this prediction. Although small significant associations between matching in LLs and some empathy subscales (namely: perspective taking and fantasy) were observed among men, analogical effects were not observed in women. It is possible that because men tend to be less empathetic than women [e.g. 56 , 57 ], the effect that high scores on empathy have on their relationships is stronger. However, the two significant associations in men did not transfer into significantly higher satisfaction among female partners.

Thus, benefits of LL matching on relationship and sexual satisfaction do not appear to be mediated by empathy. From a relationship counseling perspective, the implication is that training couples to improve matching may be addressed instrumentally as a skill to be acquired. For instance, such an intervention program could begin with measuring the level of discrepancies between partners in expressed vs. felt LLs, and providing both partners with ideas for specific behaviors that they could use to better meet the emotional needs of each other, as endorsed by Chapman [ 1 ]. Expressing love in the form desired may enhance relationship quality, even if the actor lacks cognitive and emotional insight into the partner’s needs.

There are several other strengths and limitations of the current study that should be noted. Our sample included participants from different age groups, cultural backgrounds and with various relationship duration, which might serve as an indicator of greater generalizability and external validity of the findings. On the other hand, the multicultural sample might have been a confounding variable, which has influenced the findings in an uncontrolled way. Future research could study bigger and more homogeneous samples. Although in the precent study we have controlled for relationship length, when testing our hypotheses, in the subsequent researches more could be done to examine the association between the relationship length and matching on LLs (e.g., controlling for log or inverse values of the relationship duration).

This study applied an online self-report survey method which results in several significant limitations as well as response biases related to social desirability [ 58 ]. Other potentially problematic issues associated with the present study design include increased possibility of condescending responses, participants’ self-selection, low response rate, submitting multiple responses, duration of the questionnaire, biased distribution channels as well as limited introspective ability of the respondent. At the same time, these methods could be associated with greater self-disclosure due to an online disinhibition effect [ 59 ].

The lack of suitable remuneration for the participants may have resulted in the response biases and nonprobability sampling. Other methods of assessment, as well as strategies aimed to prevent the response biases (i.e. adding several attention checks) and encouraging subjects providing reimbursement for participation are needed to eliminate the response and participation biases.

Another point that has to be addressed is the direction of causality. Even though the present results confirmed LL–satisfaction associations, future research should seek to establish the direction of causation between those factors. For instance, there is a possibility that romantic partners who are more satisfied in their current relationships are also more likely to give and appreciate LLs behaviors. Our study also did not assess other factors that might drive matching on LLs. The observed association could also be multi-directional or be mediated by another variable. For instance, emotional intelligence may contribute to romantic relationship satisfaction and quality [see 60 , 61 ]. Matching on LLs may also be a byproduct of assortative mating for personal characteristics like intelligence or personality type [ 62 ]. Other individual differences that were shown to influence relationship quality, such as time perspective or chronotype, could be also taken into account as potential mediators or confounders of the effects of LLs on relationship outcomes [e.g. 55 ; 63 ].

In conclusion, this study provides a unique contribution to the empirical literature on Chapman’s basic assumption of Five Love Languages [ 1 ]. Our findings suggest that people who better match each other’s preferences for LLs are more satisfied with their relationships and sexual life. Moreover, it appears that satisfying the needs of one’s partner has at least as strong an impact on the individual’s perceptions of relationship quality as receiving expression of love in the desired ways does. However, contrary to our hypothesis, small associations between matching on LLs and degree of empathy were observed only for some empathy subscales among male, but not female participants, and empathy was unrelated to satisfaction. Future work may explore other possible mediators of the LL matching–relationship satisfaction association.

The present findings, particularly the novel way to assess matching for LLs presented in the present paper, may be important for the subsequent research in the field of the romantic relationships. They also provide useful practical implications for marital and family counseling, as well as for laymen who aim to improve the quality of their relationship. Learning to recognize and react to one’s partners love needs may be an important skill for building relationship satisfaction in both partners.

Supporting information

S1 appendix..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429.s001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429.s002

S1 File. Variables’ names and abbreviations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429.s003

  • 1. Chapman G. The five love languages: How to express heartfelt commitment to your mate. Chicago: Northfield Publishing; 1992.
  • 2. Chapman G, Southern R. The 5 Love Languages for Men. Chicago: Northfield Publishing; 2015.
  • 3. Floyd K. Communicating affection: Interpersonal behavior and social context. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2006.
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar
  • PubMed/NCBI
  • 24. Ickes W, Hodges SD. Empathic accuracy in close relationships. In: Simpson J, Campbell L, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Close Relationships. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. pp. 348–373.
  • 32. Leaver E, Green D. Psychophysiology and The Five Love Languages. In: Eastern Psychological Association Conference. Philadelphia; 2015, March.
  • 34. Veale SL. How do I love thee? An investigation of Chapman’s Five Love Languages (Doctoral dissertation). Capella University, Minneapolis; 2006. Available from: http://bigfatresearchpaper.blogspot.com/2008/02/new-source-how-do-i-love-thee.html .
  • 45. Antonucci TC. A life-span view of women’s social relations. In: Turner BF, Troll L, editors. Women growing older: Psychological perspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1994. pp. 239–269.
  • 47. de Jong Gierveld J, van Tilburg T, Dykstra PA. Loneliness and social isolation. In: Vangelisti A, Perlman D, editors. The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships. Cambriedge: Cambridge University Press; 2005. pp.485–500.

APS

Empirical Evidence Is My Love Language 

  • Current Directions in Psychological Science
  • Observer Departments
  • Relationships
  • Social Media
  • Teaching Current Directions

research paper on love languages

Aimed at integrating cutting-edge psychological science into the classroom, columns about teaching  Current Directions in Psychological Science  offer advice and how-to guidance about teaching a particular area of research or topic in psychological science that has been the focus of an article in the APS journal  Current Directions in Psychological Science .

More teaching resources from the Observer : There’s No Ghost in the Machine: How AI Changes Our Views of Ourselves

Impett, E. A., Park, H. G., & Muise, A. (in press). Popular psychology through a scientific lens: Evaluating love languages from a relationship science perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science .   

The study of intimate relationships stands out among all the areas of psychology prone to popular misconceptions and myths. Peruse the self-help section of any bookseller, look at YouTube channels, or scroll through TikTok, and you will find no shortage of relationship advice lacking scientific support.  

Take, for example, the idea of “love languages” proposed by Gary Chapman (1992, 2015), an author and radio talk-show host. According to Chapman, partners use five love languages to express love and intimacy: verbal affirmation, quality time, gifts, service, and physical touch. People differ in their preferred love languages. If your partner can “speak” yours (and you can speak theirs), your relationship ought to be more satisfying and long-lasting.  

The idea of love languages has become hugely popular and the term itself is pervasive in popular culture. Musical entertainers SZA and Ariana Grande both have songs entitled “Love Language”, and there are multiple social media references to this theory by influencers and counselors alike. In fact, the concept is so ubiquitous it is even used in marketing, as with a recent email from Venmo with the subject line, “Security is our love language.” Despite its popularity, decades of research do not support the basic tenets of love languages. 

research paper on love languages

In their Current Directions article, Impett and colleagues (2023) review the (lack of) empirical support for each assumption of the love languages theory. First, research indicates that people like and appreciate all five ways of receiving love, not just one. Second, the five languages show considerable overlap, which calls into question the very existence of distinct languages. Finally, even when using Chapman’s five languages, researchers have not found a consistent positive association between relationship satisfaction and either matching or mismatching on languages. In fact, all expressions of love, regardless of one’s self-reported primary language, are related to higher satisfaction (Chopik et al., 2023).  

Why does the myth of love languages endure? Implett et al. (2023) argue it is because of the intuitive metaphor it provides while offering a simplistic way to improve one’s relationship. Metaphors make complicated, multi-faceted issues more understandable and digestible, offering simplistic solutions to complex problems. Therefore, they argue that the best way to combat the love language myth is to replace it with a better metaphor with the same intuitive appeal but backed by empirical evidence: Love as a nutritionally balanced diet . 

In contrast to speaking only one language, the balanced-diet metaphor suggests that just as we need to consume multiple essential nutrients for a healthy body, so do we need multiple essential relational “nutrients” (the original five and more) for a healthy relationship. Our relationship might be able to survive on just verbal affirmation, and there might be situations when we need one relational nutrient more than another (e.g., physical touch in times of stress, Jakubiak & Feeney, 2019). However, research supports the idea that for maximal relationship health, we need a balanced diet of all the key nutrients over time. 

This article provides a unique and direct opportunity to encourage students to think critically about psychological science and popular self-help advice. Use one of the following activities to bring this Current Directions article into the classroom. 

1. Correcting social media   

This activity asks students to use their voices on their social media platforms to influence peers. Divide students into small groups and assign each group one of the three assumptions of love languages that the authors debunk. Ask each group to create a short and engaging social media post debunking the assumption and introducing the “love as a nutritionally balanced diet” metaphor. These can be done as videos or infographics (e.g., for TikTok, Instagram). Encourage students to identify and keep in mind their audience and to be creative.  

2. Critiquing social media  

This activity encourages students to think critically about social media content. Ask students to find a social media post that perpetuates the love language myth. Using the information from the article or course material, ask them to critique the post’s scientific accuracy. For example, is the information backed by scientific evidence? Is it generalizable? Could it be replicated? 

3. Design a study  

Now that the authors have proposed this new metaphor, other psychological scientists will test it. Encourage students to be scientists in your classroom. In small groups, ask students to design a study to test the “love is a nutritionally balanced diet” theory. In designing the study, the groups must 

  • state a hypothesis, 
  • identify their sample, 
  • identify their variables, 
  • and describe the operational definition of each variable.  

If you want a more thorough review of research methods, assign half the groups to use an experimental design and the other a correlational design, and then compare conclusions. 

4. Metaphor think–pair–share  

Metaphors are useful in simplifying complex concepts or theories. First, ask students to list any other metaphors they can think of in psychology. (For example, students might mention memory as a computer, the eye as a camera, consciousness as an iceberg, different genders being from different planets.) Second, ask students to get in pairs (or small groups) and share their metaphors. Have them pick one metaphor and list two to three limitations of the metaphor (for example, unlike a computer, the brain reconstructs memories). Finally, call on pairs to share their metaphor and limitations with the whole class or on a discussion board. Encourage students to think critically about psychological metaphors they encounter. 

Feedback on this article? Email  [email protected]  or login to comment.

References  

Chapman, G. D. (1992). The five love languages: How to express heartfelt commitment to your mate . Northfield. 

Chapman, G. D. (2015). The five love languages: The secret to love that lasts . Northfield. 

Chopik, W. J., Hickman, L., Weidmann, R., Purol, M., & Yang, H. (2023). Lost in translation: Matching on love languages rarely predicts relational outcomes. [Talk]. International Association for Relationship Research Mini-Conference, Phoenix, AZ, United States. 

Jakubiak, B. K., & Feeney, B. C. (2019). Hand-in-hand combat: Affectionate touch promotes relational well-being and buffers stress during conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 45 (3), 431–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218788556 

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

About the Author

Elizabeth Yost Hammer is a Kellogg Professor in the Liberal Arts in the Psychology Department at Xavier University of Louisiana. A social psychologist, she is a coauthor of Myers’ Psychology for the AP Course (4th edition), as well as Psychology Applied to Modern Life (now in its 13th edition).

research paper on love languages

Chemistry Between People: A Sum of Their Connections

Have you ever felt a special “spark” with someone—an intense bond with a potential partner, friend, or colleague? If so, you probably thought you experienced “chemistry.” Literary references to interpersonal chemistry appeared as early as 1590

research paper on love languages

Caring for Loved Ones the Top Priority for People Worldwide

Evolutionary psychologists have focused much their research on the human pursuit of love and sex, but a global study shows that people’s strongest motivations lie elsewhere.

This is a photo of an older woman and a younger woman looking at a photo album

I Loved Her, I Loved Her Not: How Current Thinking Can Sway Our Memories of Love

As our memories fade, we rely on our current assessment of a person to remember how we felt about them in the past, and this extends to some of the most central figures in our lives: our parents.

Privacy Overview

  •   Home
  • University Colleges
  • SUNY College at New Paltz
  • SUNY New Paltz Undergraduate Honors Thesis Collection

Campus Communities in SOAR

Exploring love languages: the key to building and maintaining healthy relationships.

Thumbnail

Average rating

Cast your vote you can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item. when enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown. star rating, date published, collections.

The following license files are associated with this item:

  • Creative Commons

entitlement

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

Export search results

The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

Is There Science Behind the Five Love Languages?

Love languages—the concept coined by Baptist pastor Gary Chapman some 30 years ago—has taken the relationships world by storm. It’s often the “go-to” topic on first dates, and, for those in relationships, love languages are said to provide deep, meaningful, and reliable insights into how relationships function. Putting love languages into action is believed to increase relationship happiness.

The concept clearly has appeal. At last count, 20 million copies have been sold worldwide of Chapman’s 1992 book The 5 Love Languages: The Secret to Love That Lasts . The book has been translated into 49 languages.

There is only one catch. There is little evidence to support the idea that love languages are “a thing,” or that love languages do much of anything to help improve relationships.

What are the love languages?

research paper on love languages

According to Chapman , there are five love languages. Each of these love languages is a way to communicate your love to your romantic partner.

In his role as a Baptist pastor, Chapman had been counselling couples for years. It was through his observations of couples that the idea of love languages was born.

He believed love languages were an intuitive and simple way to teach couples about how to tune into each other’s ways of expressing love. And so, he began running seminars for husbands and wives, and the popularity of his seminars grew.

The five love languages are:

  • acts of service (doing something that helps a partner, such as running an errand)
  • physical touch (demonstrating physical affection, such as giving your partner a hug or kiss)
  • quality time (spending time together and giving each other undivided attention)
  • gifts (giving your partner a present that communicates thoughtfulness, effort, or expense)
  • words of affirmation (such as expressing your admiration, or complimenting your partner).

Chapman suggests that people typically use all love languages, but that most people tend to rely on one love language most of the time. This is referred to as a person’s primary love language.

According to Chapman, people are more satisfied in their relationships when both partners match when it comes to their primary love language. However, people experience less satisfaction in their relationships when both partners do not share the same primary love language.

Another important aspect of the love languages concept is that relationships are likely to deliver the greatest satisfaction when a person can understand their partner’s love language, and act in ways that “speak to” their partner’s language. In essence, this idea is about tuning in to what a partner wants.

This is an idea that has existed across many models and theories about how relationships function well. That is, responding to a partner in a way that meets their needs and wants makes a person feel understood, validated, and cared for .

What does the evidence tell us?

Despite the popularity of the theory of love languages, only a handful of studies have been conducted and reported over the past 30 years. Research is largely inconclusive, although the balance sways more toward refuting rather than endorsing the love languages concept.

Let’s start with how love languages are assessed. In popular culture, the Love Language Quiz TM is an online questionnaire that people can complete to find out about their love languages. Despite millions of individuals having taken the quiz (according to 5lovelanguages.com), there are no published findings as to the reliability and validity of the measure.

Researchers have developed their own version of the love languages survey, but the findings did not meet the statistical thresholds to suggest the survey adequately captured the five love languages. Also, their findings did not support the idea that there are five love languages.

Furthermore, a qualitative study, in which researchers coded the written responses of undergraduate students to questions about how they express love, suggested there may be six love languages. However, the researchers reported difficulty agreeing on how some of the students’ responses neatly fitted into Chapman’s love languages, particularly in the categories of “words of affirmation” and “quality time.”

Next, let’s turn to research testing a core premise of the love language theory: that couples with matching love languages experience greater satisfaction than those who do not. Evidence for this premise is very mixed.

Three studies , including one that used Chapman’s Love Language Quiz, have found that couples with matching love languages were no more satisfied than couples who were mismatched.

However, a more recent study found that partners with matching love languages experienced greater relationship and sexual satisfaction than partners with mismatched love languages. This research also found that men who reported greater empathy and perspective taking had a love language that better matched the language of their partner.

Finally, what does the research say about whether having a better understanding of your partner’s love language is linked to higher relationship satisfaction? Only two studies have investigated this question. Both found that knowing your partner’s primary love language did predict relationship satisfaction in the present or into the future.

So, as you can see, not only is there very little research investigating love languages, but the research to date doesn’t strengthen belief in the powerful properties of love languages.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

About the Author

Headshot of Gery Karantzas

Gery Karantzas

Gery Karantzas, Ph.D. , is currently a professor and director of the Science of Adult Relationships (SoAR) Laboratory in the School of Psychology at Deakin University. He is also a couples therapist and was the former national convener of the Australian Psychological Society Psychology of Relationships Interest Group.

You May Also Enjoy

research paper on love languages

Moments of Love and Connection May Help You Live Longer

research paper on love languages

How to Stop Romantic Comedies from Ruining Your Love Life

research paper on love languages

How to Communicate With Love (Even When You’re Mad)

Man and woman with backs to each other and heads in hands

When Are You Sacrificing Too Much in Your Relationship?

research paper on love languages

How Your Relationships Can Bring Out the Best in You

research paper on love languages

How Your Relationship Can Expand Your Sense of Self

GGSC Logo

IMAGES

  1. Connecting with Kids Using Love Languages

    research paper on love languages

  2. Five Love Languages

    research paper on love languages

  3. 5 Love Languages: How to Receive and Express Love

    research paper on love languages

  4. How to Use the 5 Love Languages, According to Therapists

    research paper on love languages

  5. 5 Love Languages Summary IA by Is Andrews

    research paper on love languages

  6. The Love Language List: How We Receive and Give Love

    research paper on love languages

VIDEO

  1. The 5 Love Languages:

  2. 5 Love languages

  3. LOVE LANGUAGE (Yawaskits

  4. Love Languages: are they fake and harmful?

  5. What's A Love Language?

COMMENTS

  1. (PDF) EXPLORING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN LOVE LANGUAGES ...

    1.9% of p articipants. The statistical analysis conducted in this study revealed that participants who preferred qualit y. time as their love language reported the highest levels of relationship ...

  2. I love the way you love me: Responding to partner's love language

    Introduction. Everyone has their own preferences for expressing and receiving romantic feelings. Based on his clinical observations Chapman [] identified five distinct ways in which people show and want to receive the signs of commitment.He labeled them 'love languages' (LLs) and proposed division into the following domains: 1) words of affirmation (verbal compliments, or words of ...

  3. Popular Psychology Through a Scientific Lens: Evaluating Love Languages

    Chapman (2015) argues that there are systematic differences in people's preferred ways of expressing and receiving love, labeled love languages.His ideas are built on three core assumptions, each of which we critically evaluate based on existing research (see Table 1).First, each person has a primary love language that they rely on the most for expressing and feeling love.

  4. Popular Psychology Through a Scientific Lens: Evaluating Love Languages

    existing research on love languages, discuss potential reasons for its popularity, propose an alternative meta-phor that could replace the love languages, and empha-size the importance of bridging the gap between popular lay theories and relationship science. Empirical Review of the Love Languages Chapman (2015) argues that there are systematic ...

  5. I love the way you love me: Responding to partner's love language

    Chapman's Love Languages hypothesis claims that (1) people vary in the ways they prefer to receive and express affection and (2) romantic partners who communicate their feelings congruent with their partner's preferences experience greater relationship quality. The author proposes five distinct preferences and tendencies for expressing love, including: Acts of Service, Physical Touch ...

  6. Revisiting the Languages of Love: An Empirical Test of the Validity

    Relational maintenance remains a prominent area of interpersonal communication research (e.g., Ogolsky & Monk, 2018) and serves as a central focus within undergraduate communication textbooks ... Revisiting the Languages of Love: An Empirical Test of the Validity Assumptions Underlying Chapman's (2015) Five Love Languages Typology.

  7. PDF Using Chapman's Five Love Languages Theory to Predict Love and

    Then, we review the connection between the love languages and both love and relationship satisfac-tion. Finally, we review some of the research that has been conducted on the love languages. Love Languages Chapman (2015) noted that all five of the love lan-guages are equally important, but that people differ on the ones they prefer.

  8. Five Love Languages and Personality Factors Revisited

    2018, Vol. 33, No. 2, 71-87 0215-0158. 71. Five Love Languages and Personality Factors Rev isited. Edwin Adrianta Surijah and Komala Sari. School of Psychology. Universitas Dhyana Pura. Current ...

  9. Speaking the Language of Love: A Qualitative Approach

    Chapman talks about five primary. languages of love namely, words of affirmation, quality time, physical touch, receiving gifts, and acts of service. One of the commonly cited reasons for the ...

  10. The distribution of Chapman's love languages in couples: An exploratory

    Chapman identified and described Five Love Languages (LLs), principal value systems by which individuals communicate and anticipate expression of affection: Words of Affirmation, Quality Time, Receiving Gifts, Acts of Service, and Physical Touch. Although Chapman's model has become embraced by laypeople and helping professionals, it remains relatively underresearched. In this exploratory ...

  11. Using Chapman's five love languages theory to predict love and

    Abstract. Chapman (2015) proposed a popular love language theory about couples' communication of love. For the present study, we predicted that partners who perceived that their partner used their preferred love language well would report greater feelings of love and relationship satisfaction. We expected this would be the same for both women ...

  12. Empirical Evidence Is My Love Language

    An email received from Venmo with the subject line, "Security is our love language.". In their Current Directions article, Impett and colleagues (2023) review the (lack of) empirical support for each assumption of the love languages theory. First, research indicates that people like and appreciate all five ways of receiving love, not just one.

  13. Exploring love languages: the key to building and maintaining healthy

    Through a series of interviews, the paper explores five "love languages" developed by Dr Gary Chapman used to communicate emotional fulfillment. The paper challenges the idea that time is a key component to the development of the five love languages. The research demonstrates that over time individuals discover their love language and that ...

  14. Is There Science Behind the Five Love Languages?

    Despite the popularity of the theory of love languages, only a handful of studies have been conducted and reported over the past 30 years. Research is largely inconclusive, although the balance sways more toward refuting rather than endorsing the love languages concept. Let's start with how love languages are assessed.

  15. (PDF) The Distribution of Chapman's Love Languages in Couples: An

    Chapman identified and described Five Love Languages (LLs), principal value systems. by which individuals communicate and anticipate expression of affection: Words of. Affirmation, Quality Time ...

  16. Parental Attachment and Love Language as Determinants of Resilience

    This research studied the resilience of graduating university students in a Philippine setting and how this construct is determined by parental attachment and love language. Luthar, Cicchetti, and Becker (2000) described resilience as "a dynamic process encompassing positive adaptation within the context of significant adversity" (p. 543).

  17. [PDF] Speaking the Language of Love: On Whether Chapman's (1992

    This paper explores and tests the claims made by Chapman (1992) in his popular press book, The Five Love Languages: How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to your Mate. One of Chapman's fundamental claims is that couples where partners receive their respective preferred love languages experience higher quality relationships than couples who do not. Couples (N = 83) reported their preferences for ...

  18. The Psychology Behind the 5 Love Languages

    Quality Time. The psychology behind this expression of love has an emphasis on the quality over quantity. Dr. Chapman explains, "Quality time is giving someone your undivided attention. I don't mean sitting on the couch watching television. I mean sitting on the couch with the TV off, looking at each other and talking.".

  19. Psychophysiology and The Five Love Languages

    This paper presents a qualitative analysis of seven quantitative academic studies on two main concepts from Gary Chapman's five love languages theory, the foundation of "The 5 love languages of ...

  20. PDF The Distribution of Chapman's Love Languages in Couples: An Exploratory

    emerging literature on the LLs, and the results provide a foundation for further research, particularly on how Chapman's model contributes to understanding the relationships between intimate relationships, self-development, and self-expansion. Keywords: Five Love Languages, relational satisfaction, relationships and self-

  21. Parental Attachment and Love Language as Determinants of Resilience

    Future research may explore how far parent-child attachment and parental love languages can predict or influence resilience throughout adulthood. Although this study proved that the variables parental attachment and love are predictive of resilience, other explanatory research designs are called for to validate a cause and effect relationship.

  22. PDF Farnsley McKenzie-Senior Seminar Research Paper

    McKenzie Farnsley Abstract. The current study will examine the relationship between Dr. Gary Chapman's Five Love. Languages and relationship satisfaction. The possible implications of this study including help. solve relationship/marriage problems, providing resources to express wants/needs to partner,

  23. [PDF] The Language of Love: The Semantics of Passion in Conversational

    This paper deals with the analysis of conceptual variation in the metaphorical construction of love in a group of dialectal varieties of contemporary English and addresses the question whether cultural and conceptual differences can be detected language-internally, not just across languages. Expand. 1. PDF.