Health, Canada (Commonwealth Union) – Emily Impett together with her collaborators at the University of Toronto (U of T), indicated that the concept of love languages, popularized by Gary Chapman in his book “The Five Love Languages: The Secret to Love That Lasts,” has gained widespread acceptance in pop culture. However, when these psychology researchers decided to scrutinize Chapman’s key assumptions through a review of existing studies, they discovered that none of the 10 studies supported his claims. Impett, a professor in the psychology department at U of T, expressed initial skepticism about the love languages idea, leading to their investigation into its scientific validity.
For instance, Chapman utilizes the metaphor of language to illustrate how individuals typically lean towards particular preferences in giving and receiving love. The concept is built on three premises: the existence of a primary love language for each person, the identification of five love languages (physical touch, words of affirmation, acts of service, quality time, and gifts), and the belief that when couples share the same love language, it enhances the quality of their relationships.
However, each of these propositions was found to be problematic when scrutinized by Impett and her research team across the 10 studies they examined and set to be published in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science.
Impett the director of the Relationships and Well-Being Laboratory pointed out that individuals determine their primary love language by taking Chapman’s quiz, which compels them to choose the expressions of love they consider most meaningful. Impett further pointed out for instance[D1] , that it might involve deciding between receiving gifts or holding hands, trade-offs that may not necessarily reflect real-life choices.
“In fact, people report that they find all of the things described by the love languages to be incredibly important in a relationship.”
Regarding the variety of love languages, research has revealed inconsistent findings regarding the five languages identified by Chapman. Additionally, other studies in the realm of relationship dynamics suggest that there are alternative ways of expressing and receiving love.
Impett emphasizes a crucial point, indicating that it’s essential to note that Chapman formulated the five love languages based on a sample of white, religious, mixed-gender, traditional couples. She highlights certain aspects that may be overlooked, such as acknowledging a partner’s individual goals beyond the relationship, which holds significance for couples with more egalitarian values.
Of utmost importance, Impett and her research team discovered no scientific support for Chapman’s central assertion that individuals who select partners fluent in their love language, or those who learn to communicate in it, will experience more successful relationships.
“There’s no support for this matching effect,” added Impett. “People are basically happier in relationships when they receive any of these expressions of love.”
Impett and her colleagues acknowledge the human desire for simple tools to enrich their romantic relationships. This recognition helps elucidate why Chapman’s book has garnered millions of sales, transforming the “love languages” into a widely embraced romantic shorthand as indicated by Chapman.
“Everyone wants to be in a good relationship, so we didn’t just say the love languages are scientifically debunked and stop there,” she explained.
The team introduced a research-grounded metaphor suggesting that relationships resemble a balanced diet. According to this perspective, individuals require a diverse array of essential emotional nutrients, encompassing factors like the five love languages, companionship, and emotional support, to sustain enduring love.
According to Impett, one of the team members, this metaphor ensures that various expressions of love remain accessible, encouraging partners to communicate their needs at different junctures. It acknowledges the dynamic nature of individuals and relationships, rejecting the notion that they can be neatly confined to categorical boxes.
