It's nearly Valentine's Day, so it's a good time to feature this new story on so-called "love languages." According to a new review article by relationships researchers, it looks like we should move love languages into the category of "things that make research psychologists cringe" (along with the Myers Briggs Type Inventory, learning styles, and others).
Many journalists have covered an empirical review article recently published in the journal, Current Directions in Psychological Science. Here's an example of coverage from website Medical Express:
Even if you don't know your love language, you've probably heard of the concept. The theory's pervasiveness in pop culture has only increased in the 30-odd years since Baptist pastor Gary Chapman published his book "The Five Love Languages: The Secret to Love That Lasts." [...]
"We were very skeptical about the love languages idea, so we decided to review the existing studies on it," says Emily Impett, a professor in the UTM department of psychology who collaborated with UTM graduate student Gideon Park and York University Assistant Professor Amy Muise. "None of the 10 studies supported Chapman's claims."
Chapman's original book argues that there are five love languages: physical touch, words of affirmation, acts of service, quality time and gifts. He also argues that each person has a primary preference for one of these. Furthermore, he argues in his book that when two partners have the same love language (for example, both of them prefer physical touch) that their relationship will be better.
The journalist explains that Impett and her team addressed three weaknesses in Chapman's theory. The first element they investigated was whether people only have one primary love language. While Chapman's q"uiz" does identify one primary love language for each respondent, in fact, because of the way it is set up, Chapman's test forces people to compare each type to the others, so people must choose one. In contrast, Impett and her colleagues wrote that when people are provided a Likert scale and asked to rate each love language individually, most people report multiple preferences of showing and expressing love.
A second critique of Chapman's original thinking was that it was based on a restricted sample (mostly White, religious, middle-class Americans). In other cultural contexts, there may be different ways of expressing love.
But let's focus on their third , and most important, claim:
Most importantly, Impett and her team found no scientific evidence for Chapman's central contention that people who choose partners that speak their love language, or learn to speak it, will have more successful relationships.
The researchers reviewed the literature and found
...no scientific evidence for Chapman's central contention that people who choose partners that speak their love language, or learn to speak it, will have more successful relationships. "There's no support for this matching effect," says Impett. "People are basically happier in relationships when they receive any of these expressions of love."
This conclusion is a great example of the theory-data cycle, so let's walk through it. I've included Figure 1 for your reference.
a) The theory-data cycle starts with a theory. What is Chapman's theory about love languages? Remember that a theory is a set of general statements about how variables are related to each other, and Chapman's theory had several ideas. What are his main theoretical ideas?
The next step in the cycle is to select a particular research question. Let's work with the research question about matching love languages. The question might be, "do couples with matching love languages have better relationships?"
Then we design a study to test the research question. In one study that Impett and her team reviewed, researchers recruited a sample of couples and measured each person's love language. They divided the couples into two types: those who had the same love language and those that did not. They measured each couple's relationship satisfaction.
b) The next step in the theory-data cycle is to state a hypothesis for the study--what should the results of this specific study be if the theory is true? State specifically what the results should be--you can even sketch a graph of the predicted outcome.
c) The next step is to evaluate the data in light of the theory. What did the study actually find? Do these results support the theory, or not? That is, which arrow in the Figure above (the right one or the left one) will be be applying in this case?
In addition to providing data to counter the "love language" theory, Impett and her colleagues proposed an alternative metaphor: a "balanced diet." Specifically, they reported that most people appreciate many kinds of ways of showing love--not just one--and that we can all benefit from receiving some of each type, no matter what type it is.
Challenge question:
d) Come up with a study that might test the "balanced diet" view of love expressions. What variables would you measure? How should the variables be related to each other if this theory is true?
