It’s really east to spell:
L               O               V               E
but do you really speak its
L A N G U A G E (S).            .            .

Is There Science Behind the Five Love Languages?

Despite how popular love languages are, there is little research to support the framework.        .        .

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.  He just recently pulled back the curtain, once again, on the Language(s) of Love

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.

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?

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.
COULD IT BE
THAT THE GREATEST WAY TO SAY,
“I LOVE YOU”
is still the way you
SHOW IT
and not the way you
s p e a k
i t.            .            .            ?

LITTLE SPEECH BUBBLES OVER OUR HEADS JUST MIGHT BE A VERY DANGEROUS THING IF OTHERS COULD READ THEM AS EASILY AS SEEING THEM.     .     .

Time Magazine recently came out with an interesting article that TALKS about way more than JUNETEENTH.        .       .It talks about how we EXPERIENCE such things based on the Language we use and Hear

As the United States celebrates its the second year with Juneteenth as a federal holiday, many articles will be written about race relations. But Cydney broached one topic that often falls under the radar: stereotypes.

From the first instant our eyes alight on a television or phone screen, we are inundated with a curated set of images that (supposedly) depict the world around us. These images often show people of color through a stereotypical lens, and these stereotypes bleed into our everyday lives—our workplaces, our social lives, our politics. As a social psychologist at Yale University, Cydney took a look at figuring out exactly how stereotypes hold us back, and what we can do about it.

She talked about being a young Black girl growing up in Prince George’s County, Maryland, Cydney loved the movies. Each year, she and her brothers would gleefully wait in line to get the best seat in the theater for the latest Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, or superhero film.

Even then, she talked how she was struck by the characters she saw. Few looked like her or her family. Those that did were one-dimensional, with limited speaking roles, often playing supporting roles to White characters. They were disproportionately poor and often criminal. They were rarely desired, easily disposed of, and never granted the nuanced and flawed inner worlds granted to White characters.

These stereotypes, rightly so, puzzled her. Prince George’s County, Maryland, is a majority-Black county—home to doctors, lawyers, politicians, and other Black professionals. The Black characters she saw on television didn’t reflect the rich, diverse, and joyful lives she saw around her. Why does the media put people of color into boxes? How do these stereotypes harm us as individuals and a society?

Cydney became a social psychologist to answer these questions. Twenty years later, she now studied stereotypes, determining how they maintain inequality and worm their way into day-to-day interactions. Across dozens of studies featuring thousands of participants, I find that stereotypes influence how we relate to others, leaking into conversations through the very words that people use.

In one test, Cydney focused on White Americans. White people are subject to stereotypes, too. They’re labeled as more competent than Black people and Latina/os, and White people think that other racial groups see them as racist and entitled. She predicted that White Americans, particularly those who want to connect across racial divides—White liberals—try to reverse these stereotypes through the very words that they use.

Cydney asked over two thousand White Americans to introduce themselves to a Black or White person online. As predicted, White liberals used fewer words related to competence (like “competitive” or “powerful”) when speaking to a Black person.

This “competence downshift” isn’t limited to a lab. Cydney analyzed over 20 years of campaign speeches by White Democratic and Republican presidential candidates and found that White Democrats used fewer words related to competence when addressing mostly-minority audiences (e.g., NAACP ) versus mostly-White ones (e.g., American Federation of Teachers). White Republicans didn’t downshift competence, likely because they’re less interested in getting along with people of color. Sure enough, White Democrats were more likely to address audiences of color than Republicans.

For White liberals, this behavior may backfire. Cydney’s and her colleagues are now testing whether White liberals who use less competent language are seen as patronizing by Black observers. If so, they may reduce, rather than improve, their chances of cross-racial connection by downshifting competence.

Do people of color also counter stereotypes using language? To find out, Cydney analyzed 250,000 congressional remarks and one million tweets by Black and Latina/o politicians in Congress and Twitter. She focused on Black Americans and Latina/os because they tend to be stereotyped as lower in status and powerthan White Americans. Cydney focused on those who are more conservative because they tend to have more positive attitudes toward White Americans and negative attitudes toward their own racial group.

She found that Black Americans and Latina/os who were more conservative used more competent language than their more liberal peers in these mostly-White settings. (There was no such effect among White politicians, or when she asked Black people to talk to other Black people.)

T              H              I              S :

These data suggest that people have a profound desire to reverse negative stereotypes, and this desire shows up in everyday conversation. Stereotypes force us into rigid boxes, and we try to break free of them using the most primary tool available to us: our words.

Now an adult, Cydney still loves mainstream television and movies—and she still is largely disappointed by what she sees. Most characters are White, the vast majority of spoken lines go to White characters, and many Black characters are rooted in stereotypes. (The latest season of Netflix’s hit Stranger Things provides a vivid example.) Awareness and research can help us understand what stereotypes are and how they are harmful, but until we enact large-scale, cultural changes that challenge these stereotypes, we will all continue to be shackled by them.

Maybe until the
YOUNG
T    E    A     C     H
D   E   M   O   N  O  S  T  R   A   T   E
S H O W
us
THAT WE ARE THE DIFFERENCES
created
had
experienced
word by word
deed by deed
person by person
STEREOTYPE
by
STEREOTYPE
can end
i     n     s     t     a     n     t     l     y
by never be
taught
learned
perpetuated

M            A            Y            B            E
I wonder what the
SPEECH BUBBLES
hovering over your head
S A Y
(Pssssssssssssst: They are more transparent than you imagine)

EVEN WHEN IT CAN BE FOUND AND DEFINED IN THE DICTIONARY
doesn’t mean that it can ever be fully
u   n   d   e   r   s   t   o   o   d
MAMNOON
may be one of those words

T     H     I     S             I     S             C     H     R     I     S     T     M     A     S

Most wait  364  days for   it   to come

but the best Kind of  Christmas 

isn’t  the  one  that’s  expressed

with  language

it’s the one that’s spoken with

with the heart

The best Kind of  Christmas

isn’t the one that needs words

but the one that leaves you speechless

The best Kind of  Christmas

isn’t the one sung of

but the one that symphonies match not

The best Kind of  Christmas

isn’t found in a manger thousands of years ago

but the one found in you–

shared with countless others

T  H  I  S        I  S        C  H  R  I  S  T  M  A  S

HAVE   THE   MOST   ENDLESS

MERRIEST   ONE

A

Caring Catalyst can share

365 days a year

Pssssssssssst of the Day:

It just might be

one

simple

h     u     g

away!

S O M E T I M E S

the greatest

B      L      O      G           P      O      S      T

is

the  skimpiest  o n e

It’s not the abundance of words in a post

.          .          .it’s the

l a n g u a g e

that can’t be spoke or written

only experienced that

shouts   the

l          o          u          d          e          s          t.          .          .

G u a r a n t e e d

there’ll never be a

G         I         F         T 

under a tree

in a store

off the internet

even homemade

that’ll have any greater impact

for those you

l          o          v          e

than the one

who looks back

not so perfectly

at you

in the mirror.        .        .

G I V E       T H A T       G  I  F  T

and

L       I       V       E       S

will  change

.        .        .especially

y            o            u            r            s.          .          .

It was a moment I’ll never forget.     .      .

She’s an 87 year old lady

on hospice

who looked up from her bed at me

and asked me if it was ok for her to say the word:

“F  *  C  K?”

It rolled so sweetly off her tongue.     .     .

from her lips.       .       .

and I remember distinctly not being able to hold back a smile as I asked,

“Do you need permission to say anything, to me, to anyone?”

“It’s   just   a   word   that   for   all   of   my   life   has   seemed   to   sum   up   everything,”

she said,

“.       .       .when   I’m   mad,   when   I’m   happy,   when   I’m   afraid   and   scared   or   when                         I’m   in   pain.     .     .”

“.     .     .Do   you   think   it’s   wrong.     .     .Do   you   think   I’ll   be   punished   for   it?”

“Was you  intention  ever to hurt someone or embarrass them?”

“Oh  no, never.   .   .I  guess  I  always  said   ‘f * c k’    to  make  me  feel  better.”

“Has it?”

“Always.   .   .it’s my go-to-sum-it-all-up-word.       .        .      .”

Some nearly twenty years later.       .       .

Every time I hear

t  h  e     w  o  r   d

I think of her and smile.       .       .

Back then I didn’t have the

Research

The Studies

The Data

that back up her empirical feelings.       .        .

I’ve swallowed bars of soap.     .     .

Sat in countless  TIME OUT  Chairs.     .     .

Been sent to my room.     .     .

Felt a hand across my face.     .     .

Been embarrassed.     .     .

but it seems that the

c     u     r     s     i     n     g

problem, isn’t a problem at all.

Now this is not a blog post

to condone

to allow

to make ok

to put a stamp of approval on

 m     u     d     d     i     e     d              w     o     r     d     s

but the studies are showing support

for what my hospice patient felt all of those years ago:

THAT   SWEARING  ACTUALLY  RELIEVES  PAIN

.       .       .and isn’t that the real goal of emotional outbursts:

TO   RELIEVE  PAIN ?

Richard Stephens of Keele University in England led a study that measured just how long 67 college students could keep their hands submerged in ice water.       .       .The group of students were encouraged to yell profanities for one controlled testing, and then to use non-swear words while completing the test.     .     .is it surprising that the 67 volunteers endured the cold temperatures for some 40 seconds longer  WHILE  SCREAMING  OBSCENITIES and more, the group actually felt less pain overall.     .      .Stephens even went so far as to say, “I would advise people, if they hurt themselves, to swear.”

Of course, there is a sanitary, clinical term for this:

HYPOALGESIC   EFFECT  OF  SWEARING

Richard Stephens also concluded 10 other reasons why swearing may be good for the Soul:

IT  MAKES  YOU FEEL  STRONGER

IT  ACTUALLY  DOESN’T  MAKE YOU  FEEL  STUPID  OR  IGNORANT

IT  SERVES  AS  A  GREAT  COPING  MECHANISM

IT  HELPS  YOU  FEEL  MUCH  MORE  RESILIENT

IT  REALLY  DOES  MAKE  YOU  FEEL  SO  VERY  MUCH  BETTER

IT’S  MORE  ENGAGING  WHILE  WATCHING  TV  AND  MOVIES

IT  HELPS  CREATE  CLOSE  BONDS  WITH  OTHER  PEOPLE

IT’S   INNATE   AND   EXPRESSIVE

IT   MEANS   YOU’RE   CREATIVE

IT  HELPS  YOU  EMPHASIZE  YOUR  POINTS  

Timothy Jay,  a psychologist at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts has spent the last 35 years studying the use of profanities.  He states, “It allows us to vent or express anger, joy, surprise, happiness, grief.     .     .It’s like the horn on your car, you can do a lot of things with that, it’s built into you.     .     .     .”

Maybe all of those years ago.       .       .

without the studies and the research.     .      .

my sweet, hospice patient was right that day.         .        .

After I prayed with her that afternoon,

her blue eyes twinkled with a sly secret

that couldn’t quite hold the surprise any longer

as she reached up and touched the side of my face and said,

“You’re such a nice  f*cking man.      .      .

we laughed for the

b e n e d i c t i o n

and honestly.      .     .

f e l t   better

Sometimes, down is really up!

Interesting, huh?

Actually, it’s much more than THAT…much, much more than just interesting.

Anyone can play around with words.

Anyone can make words say or work for them in any particular way seen fit.

Anyone can say what they mean but often not mean what they say.

S E M A N T I C S. . . .

Hmmmmmm…THE STUDY OF MEANING IN LANGUAGE. IT CAN BE APPLIED TO ENTIRE TEXTS OR TO SINGLE WORDS….

or just a fancy way to say we can make words say what we want them to whether or not you take them that way or not. . .

or just a fancy way to say, “I DIDN’T MEAN THAT–YOU TOOK IT THE WRONG WAY!”

Sometimes, down is really up.

When you JUST hear with your ears. . .

When you Just hear with your eyes. . .

You just don’t hear everything that’s being said or meant; THAT just doesn’t make for a LOST GENERATION…it just makes for plain out being L O S T.

Psssst: Maybe the new DOWN actually is UP?

Try Listening with your heart!

If you speak from THAT PLACE, Semantics go out the door that is suddenly Hinge-LESS and Meaning is never MIS-understood.

You choose!

Sometimes Down is really UP. . . .

Shhhhhhh….

Huh? What’s that?

L I S T E N