You’ve probably come across the five love languages at some point, either in an online dating profile, a glossy magazine or viral TikTok video.
The theory behind them, created by American couples’ counsellor Gary Chapman, asserts that there are five ‘languages’ romantic partners use to communicate their love: words of affirmation, quality time, gifts, acts of service and physical touch. Problems in a relationship, according to Chapman, can stem from not communicating in the same ‘love language’.
But is there any science behind the theory? Do couples need to have compatible love languages to be happy?
“There’s no psychological evidence to suggest that they actually do exist,” says Dr Martin Graff, an academic psychologist who studies the psychology of romantic relationships. “Looking at it, [the theory] seems intuitively quite plausible, and there are one or two studies that may have lent a little bit of support to the whole notion, but there’s not a lot of scientific support for the idea.”
Read more:
- How did the heart become synonymous with love?
- Scientifically, could love count as an addiction?
- Here’s how to tell if your dog actually loves you, according to science
No evidence wholly supports Chapman’s five languages, but different theories about relationship behaviours suggest there may be three, six or even seven of them. It’s also unlikely that we have one set preference. Sometimes we want physical touch, but in other circumstances we’d prefer quality time with a partner.
Furthermore, we’re not necessarily that good at knowing which language we want, either: in one study from 2013, participants chose the love language that they thought most applied to themselves, then answered a series of questions designed to elicit their preferences for each of the languages. But the relationship between what language people said they preferred and their answers wasn’t significant: someone could say their love language was ‘physical touch’, for example, and yet answer that they felt more loved when they received a gift from their partner.
This same study also found no significant result when the researchers compared couples with matching or mis-matching languages and their relationship satisfaction. Sharing a love language doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll be happier (another study in 2017 came to the same conclusion).
Similarity in relationships is associated with better outcomes, though. If you clash when it comes to your values, or deal with conflict in entirely different ways, you’re less likely to report relationship satisfaction.
“We know that romantic couples who are similar in core values and things like their ethical views, political views, or how they might raise children, for example, tend to be more compatible,” says Graff.
‘Birds of a feather flock together’, then, is a more appropriate representation of what we look for in a long-term partner than ‘opposites attract’. But when a sample of over 1,600 couples was asked about their personalities, no link was found between similarity and overall life satisfaction. Given that our romantic relationships are affected by other things that affect life satisfaction and wellbeing, it makes sense that similarity alone isn’t enough to guarantee a happy relationship (or life).
Despite the lack of evidence to support or disprove Chapman’s theory, it’s still useful for us to think about our own wants and needs in a relationship, and talk to our partners about theirs. We often fall prey to a cognitive bias known as the false consensus effect, in which we assume other people behave and want in the same way we do.
Our preferences might change over time – what we consider to be important in our romantic relationships now might seem superficial 20 years down the line. In the past, marrying for love might not have been as important as marrying for financial security, say, but now love is top of the list for most people.
About our expert
Dr Martin Graff is a Senior Lecturer in Psychology at the University of South Wales, UK. His main research interests are in the psychology of romantic relationships, online dating and social media. His research has been published in journals including Technology, Mind and Behaviour, Nova Science and Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking.
Read more:
