470. Are the love languages a big myth?

0:04 Hello everybody, I'm Gemma Spake and welcome back to the Psychology of Your 20s, the podcast where we talk through the biggest changes, moments and transitions of our 20s and what they mean for our psychology. Hello everybody, welcome back to the show, welcome back to the podcast. Thank you for joining me back for another episode as we break down the psychology of our 20s. I have another bonus episode for you today. This is part of our series, my little passion project series on debunking psychology, where we essentially take a common psychology concept, term, experiment, theory that you've probably heard about a lot online or, you know, just around, and we give you the real science and research and more importantly, the history of We have done

1:01 terms like Stockholm Syndrome, we've done personality tests, dopamine, we've done the life and work of Freud, and I've been teasing this episode for a long while. We're finally getting around to it. Today, I wanted to cover the truth about love languages. Now, I've actually done an episode on love languages before, way, way, way back in the At the time, I definitely didn't do as much of the historical research as I did for this episode. So when I was listening back to it, I was like, it's kind of owed a redo. And today I'm going to do it. We're going to explore where the idea of love languages that is so, so prevalent these days, where did it come from? How is it tied up in the Baptist church? Is there any scientific evidence for love languages?

1:58 And what... matters more. You know, love languages are seen as this antidote, this like miracle cure for finding how to speak love to your partner. There's probably some things that matter more than gift giving, acts of service, words of affirmation. What are they? We're going to explore it without further ado. Let's get into the secret history and the psychology of love languages. I think that the five love languages are among the most widely recognized, if not the most widely recognized idea in popular psychology. I think all of us have heard about it and we've heard about it probably more than once. It's literally a prompt on hinge. So many people have done the quiz. Anytime you've dated, I'm sure there's been some kind of conversation

2:45 of like, what's your love language? How do you like to give and receive love? I remember talking about it so much at university, sitting around the dining table, like doing the quiz with my friends. The framework for the five love languages actually began as a book. Then it turned into a radio show. And now most famously, it is that online quiz that you have probably done, which according to its own website, more people have taken than the entire population of Russia. So it is insanely widespread as far as like psychology, if not pseudo psychology terms and ideas kind of go. The central claim of this theory is that each person has a primary way of giving and receiving love and that a relationship will improve

3:28 whether that's between two partners, two friends, family members. It will improve if we express love in the way that the other person prefers to receive it rather than just expressing love the way that we want to. What's at the core is these love languages, right? So let's go through them. There's five. The first is acts of service.

3:50 These are doing tasks and chores for somebody, things that are meant to lighten the other person's load, you know, doing things that somebody dislikes doing, sharing everyday routines, offering practical help for stuff. The second is gift giving or receiving gifts. So giving people presents, surprises, reminders of affection.

4:10 It could be symbolic gifts. It could be big, grand gifts, sentimental gifts. Anything that shows that the other person was on the giver's mind also doesn't need to require money. It could be like picking up flowers or finding a rock that reminded them of you, just that sort of thing. The third is quality time. So giving somebody your full undivided attention, whether that's in conversation or in shared activities like going on dates, having rituals, having routines together, being fully present in the moment with no distractions. That's the third.

4:44 The fourth is words of affirmation. So compliments, appreciation, encouragement, that can either be like verbal, but it can also be like through written words, through letters, through texts, just basically saying like, hey, I really like you. I really am thinking about you. I think that you're amazing, that sort of thing. And the fifth is physical touch. This is care and connection that's kind of shown through like hugging holding hands kissing I was going to say petting that's kind of a strange word though but I guess yeah petting sex as well basically it's attention given through body language and like gestures that symbolize like I want to be close to you I like you I care about you that one sounds like it could only be

5:28 reserved for romantic relationships it can also be like a friend who it really always wants to give you a hug who you you know, you can see they really care about you because they fix your hair. They always want to like pat you on the back. I don't know, just like small things like that. When you go and do the quiz, what the quiz will tell you is which of these languages, which of these preferred ways of giving and receiving love is dominant for you. They don't have to be the same. So you could prefer giving love in a completely different way to the way that you prefer receiving love. So you have a language for both giving and receiving and And it essentially says when there is harmony in how love is given and received

6:07 between two people, the relationship improves. I think that part of the theory is a part of the theory I really, really like. And I do really give love languages a lot of credit for helping people identify what's maybe missing or lacking in their relationships. It really does promote self-knowledge about what you require in a relationship. But I also think the beauty of love languages is that It's also about the other person. It really requires having empathy for somebody else and being willing to put yourself in their shoes.

6:40 That doesn't seem revolutionary, but you've got to remember this theory was made like in the 90s. And I do think that like at the time there was a real like men are from Mars, women are from Venus ideology. The idea of like, let's have a sit down conversation about what we both want. Men shouldn't just be the givers, women the receivers. Like, let's really discuss this was quite a revolutionary thing. Let's go, however, to the Frameworks creator.

7:10 That's probably going to be my one and only compliment for the love languages. There might be a few more, but you'll see why. The founder and creator was this man called Gary Chapman. Now, Gary was born in the 1930s in North Carolina, and he became a Baptist pastor in his 20s. He's still alive, by the way. He's still doing interviews. He's still writing books, but through his work as a pastor, he encountered a lot of really unhappy couples, really unhappy couples who were in crisis, who wanted to get divorced. And his role as their kind of religious figure was to help them not get divorced and to help them repair that bond. What he started to notice in these counseling sessions was something very, very distinct.

7:54 A lot of couples were coming to him and basically saying, After the wedding, like the love slowly died. This person has changed. I resent who they've become. Nothing I do is ever good enough for them and vice versa. And he also started hearing a lot of husbands essentially being like, my wife won't have sex with me. Our sexual chemistry has disappeared. I'm not happy about that. Why doesn't she seem to like me anymore? And this was a big concern for Gary. He had very conservative Christian views. He really believed in the sanctity of marriage. He believed in having lots of kids. He believed in keeping the family together.

8:28 And so he began to develop this idea that when couples reach this point, it's because they weren't communicating love in the same way. They had fallen, they were speaking different languages. That's why they were seemingly incompatible. One small issue with this theory, Gary Chapman is actually Dr. Gary Chapman.

8:47 You'll see that name in his books. You'll see it on the website, but he's not a medical doctor. He does not have any background in psychology or or scientific research. He has a doctorate in ministry and in adult education, which is a degree specifically geared to helping people become ministers, especially at the university he did it at. However, his love languages were presented as this scientific theory that had been originated or developed by an actual doctor. In reality, when you look into his work, it is largely anecdotal it is based on you know maybe a dozen or so couples that he saw in his church and not only is it anecdotal it was also deeply shaped by his own religious beliefs in the teachings of the bible

9:39 this is something most people who have encountered the theory of love languages maybe won't know when you actually read the original book it is a christian marriage counseling manuscript it includes bible verses it includes commandments there is very little actual psychology and actual science. He has also created this whole theory around a very narrow idea of love, which is that love is between a man and a woman who have hopefully both waited for marriage, who believe in death do us part, who believe in God at the center of the marriage. And there's nothing wrong with that, but it may not slash is no longer what the average person's experience with love is. And it's definitely not the average person who encounters the love language theory. A

10:32 faith-based self-help book is not a problem at all. The issue is that the framework has now been taken out of context and is frequently presented as this universal truth about human behavior and human relationships when it was created for people who were in largely unhappy heterosexual Christian marriages.

10:53 And yet we often feel like even if we don't match that, maybe that category of people, that category of relationships, We feel like it should still apply to us. We need to know our love language. Our partner needs to know theirs. We need to be in sync. That is the only way to achieve harmony. Something a lot of people have noticed about this theory is that each love language is not actually that special. And what I mean by that is that a lot of these love languages are something that a marriage or a relationship should already contain slash always contain. you know, doing half the mental load of running a house. That's not expressing love through acts of service. That's the bare minimum. That's what it

11:39 takes to be in a relationship. Telling your partner that you care about them is not some luxury that you should only present when, you know, times are tough or because that is their primary love language. That is fundamental to a harmonious, loving connection. We have to be careful with extrapolating Gary's theory too far because what Gary's theory was really meant to be for was people who were in crisis, who were like, didn't know essentially how to continue being in love with each other. So love languages cannot be seen as this antidote or this medication that's only prescribed to in a relationship is souring. You know, we can't just be like, well, pour one words of affirmation over the wound and hope it will fix it

12:22 or insert one quality time afternoon so your partner can stop nagging you. No, this is a lot more foundational And you should be speaking in all the languages, not all the time, but pretty regularly. A third controversy concerns how the love languages framework has been applied and was originally applied to very difficult relationships. This is probably the most problematic part of the love languages theory. And it's the part that really gets mentioned. When you read Chapman's original book, which I have actually done, I did my research, I read it. there are some pretty awful passages regarding women not wanting to have sex with their husbands. And his response to that is essentially to say, well, if

13:09 that is your husband's love language, physical touch, you need to find a way. This is a direct example from his original book, page 231, if you are following along at home. In this section of the book, Dr. Chapman has instructed a husband and wife to have sexual intercourse at least once a week for two weeks and then twice a week for the next two weeks. The wife, her name is Anne, says, quote, I have found it incredibly hard to be sexually responsive to him when he ignores me all the time. I have felt used rather than loved. He acts as though I am totally unimportant and then wants to jump in bed and use my body.

13:46 I do not know if I can have sex with him. This is how Dr. Chapman responds. Another direct quote. You will probably have to rely heavily upon your faith in God in order to do this. Perhaps it will help you to read again Jesus' sermon on loving your enemies, loving those who hate you, loving those who use you.

14:04 You are simply choosing to do something for his benefit. I think that must be what Jesus wants. That is a direct quote. I feel like I don't need to say how deeply problematic it is. It should be completely obvious, but that is... so wrong. That is so wrong that he is literally quoting a sermon in which we need to love our enemies to convince Anne, who was enduring what was essentially an emotionally abusive relationship, to have sex with her husband. The name of this chapter was literally titled, How to Love Somebody That You Hate. Is the best advice for somebody who is in deep distress because their husband treats them terribly? telling them that maybe they should just have sex with them more and do it because

14:54 Jesus would want you to? Probably not. Like, probably not. Critics also point out a structural problem with the model itself. In abusive relationships, the love languages can be manipulated. Words of affirmation, for example, can be used to gaslight. Gift giving can be used for love bombing. The framework... Also, the way that Chapman sometimes applies it is used to assign blame. If a relationship isn't working, it's because one partner's love language is not being met. That places responsibility on the partner who is seen as failing to meet it.

15:33 In Chapman's original book, the person failing was most often the woman. Only afterwards, after she had gotten herself figured out, would they start addressing the man's behavior as well. I think this is particularly important when we consider larger expectations about gender. If one person's work is treated as, you know, is treated as automatic whilst the other person receives special credit for occasionally doing it, that's not really romance. You know, the example of acts of service, like when a man performs acts of service, it's this dedicated, devoted thing. When a woman does it in this text, it's just what she's meant to do and she should have to do other things on top of it. I think it is

16:14 a very narrow wave of seeing love. So these are our initial issues with the love language theory. They're definitely not light and easy issues, that's for sure. They're pretty problematic. They're things that maybe you didn't know. Does that mean we have to dismiss the theory altogether? Controversially, I don't think so. I would be the first person to tell you about this history and to say, hey, wait, did you know this? And even then, I still feel like it's quite valuable I still feel like if it works for you and if it's interesting to you you should do it but the second half of this episode I really want to address whether we are just choosing to believe in this like is there actual evidence that learning

17:00 to speak your partner's love language knowing your love language will actually help your relationship I want to discuss that next so stick around we're going to talk about that after this short break The central question of the second part of the episode is, are the love languages supported by scientific evidence? Despite all their controversies and their history, you know, is there anything that actually says, well, we should still pay attention to it because it may be true despite everything else. So in 2024, these researchers published a review to kind of end all reviews on this very question. Are the love languages real? And it was titled Popular Psychology Through a Scientific Lens, Evaluating Love Languages

17:47 from a Relationship Science Perspective. The authors basically said people love this idea and they love this idea because it's so simple and straightforward that it feels hard not to believe in. It is such a nice belief to have that each person on earth has a preferred love language and that the couples who are most satisfied speak each other's preferred love languages and bada bing, bada boom. You can save your relationship this way and you can also find the right person easier from the get-go by just getting them to do a quiz and you do the quiz and we align and that's that. Never mind the factors that really do impact a relationship like trust, like compatibility, like outside stresses. Those sorts of things don't matter as much.

18:31 What they found was that, although that's such a nice story, when you look at the science, when you look at the data, there is actually very little evidence that that speaking the same love language or even choosing to speak the love language of your partner is going to determine long-term relationship success. There was a larger, much more direct study that came in 2025 that essentially backed this up.

18:54 It was from researchers in the US and Canada who assessed over 500 people who were currently in long-term relationships. What they first wanted to examine was, does everybody seem to have a primary love language? They found that actually fewer than half of the participants did. They actually didn't seem to have a preference. So this very fundamental idea that you have one preferred love language and that is like the way to your heart was dismissed. And then they also found that, you know, even if they did have a preferred love language, your partner expressing love to you through that preferred avenue was not a strong predictor of relationship quality. There was so much more that actually mattered and gift giving, physical touch, acts of service, words

19:43 of affirmation, they were most effective when they were delivered as a blend or were delivered all together rather than just individually every now and again. The study did in fact identify behaviors that predicted relationship quality well beyond a preferred love language. And these were encouragement for individual pursuits, supporting during difficult times, accountability, and responsiveness. Responsiveness being one of the most critical, because what they basically said was that the theory around love languages is really, in Chapman's original work, a theory about responding to your partner. It's not that we each have this one specific preferred avenue for receiving love, it's that we are willing to listen

20:30 to what somebody needs in all areas of the relationship. And the reason that all these couples that Chapman was talking to needed to hear about the love languages so badly was because they really just needed to hear about the idea of responsiveness really badly, which is that when your partner is asking for more from you, it doesn't really matter how you give that. You just need to be doing more. You just need to be willing to have a conversation with them and you need to be willing to want to make them feel better. Responsiveness was actually this idea first identified by researchers at the Gottman Institute.

21:06 And it's basically the degree to which you are able to identify your partner's needs and you are willing to fulfill them. And when you read the original book about the Loveling, which is every example, it's not about gifts. It's not about words of affirmation. It's about two people who have just stopped caring about each other. And this is a very simple way to start caring for each other again. in a way that feels scientific and feels like there is a bit of a formula to it, hence the appeal. They also point to the fact in this study from 2025 in the US and in Canada that the theory doesn't capture every way that people show love as well. So where is humor? A lot of people show love through goofing around. Where is the love

21:53 language that represents emotional security? Where is the love language that represents engaging in intellectual questions or debates or puzzles together, it's just a little bit too narrow. So what are the alternatives? If love languages are seen as pseudoscientific, what theories can we rely on? Well, the biggest one is that theory, the responsiveness theory. The relationships that work are people who actually want to be in a relationship and make choices to continue showing love in a variety of ways and But they're also the relationships that change based on what either person needs rather than trying to too strictly show love, be in love, act in love in a certain way. The other theory that makes a lot

22:39 of sense is something called the triangular theory of love. And this basically says that specifically romantic love consists and needs three core components. Otherwise, the relationship collapses. It needs intimacy. It needs passion. And it needs decision and commitment. A relationship that is going to flourish needs people to be close to each other, needs people to feel bonded to each other. There also needs to be romance. There needs to be some kind of desire for this person, even if it's not physical, intellectually, emotionally, socially. And then at the end of the day, there needs to be this commitment to maintain that love. And I feel like this is a better way of seeing things rather than being like,

23:24 trying to apply these like band-aid approaches of like, well, I'm giving you gifts. Why aren't you happy? It's about really observing, okay, are we targeting intimacy? Is intimacy in our relationship flourishing? Yes or no. Is passion in our relationship flourishing? Yes or no. Is there commitment in our relationship?

23:41 Yes or no. And targeting those three channels separately and through a more diverse, I don't know, array of methods or arrays of showing love. So To summarize, we've come to the end of this episode, this thorough look into the history and psychology of love languages. What you really need to take away from this is that love languages are, I would say, at times harmless, fun, maybe even helpful.

24:12 I still really do believe that gift giving is my primary love language because that's just who I am. Whether the theory is proven as pseudoscientific or not, I still see that as a part of who I am. But when it comes to genuine scientific evidence that we would want a theory like this to have, there really just isn't any. It just doesn't hold up. You can be performing somebody else's love language perfectly and still encounter deep problems and vice versa. And there seems to be certain elements that matter way more, like encouragement, support during difficult times, and of course, responsiveness, um, Those things need to probably be targeted before we start applying. I don't want to say these love languages are luxuries, but before we start

25:01 getting into the nitty gritty, you need those core pillars first. Also, as I said, a lot of where this idea of love languages came from was from one person's mind who was encountering a very specific kind of couple that might not apply to everybody. cultures, different people, different religions, different, you know, people with different sexualities will probably experience the love languages and the theory very differently. This is based solely on his experiences counseling Christian married, unhappily married couples.

25:39 So to extrapolate that and say, well, this can be universal and apply to everyone is where we do kind of find this theory to get quite problematic. I hope you enjoyed this episode, though. I hope I haven't burst your bubble too much. Again, I think they're still really fun. So please go ahead and do it. Literally feel free to comment down below what yours is, because why not?

25:59 Mine's definitely give giving like that's part of who I am. I'm not going to I'm not going to get rid of that for anybody. But yeah, I just hope that you enjoyed learning a little bit more about the history. Thank you to our researcher Erin Somerville for her assistance with this episode. If you found this enjoyable, send it to a friend. Maybe they'd want to learn as well.

26:17 You can also leave a five-star review, leave a comment down below. I was going to say like this episode, but I don't think you can do that. So if you can, I would love to know how, but if not, you can also follow us on Instagram. You can follow us on Substack. There's all these other ways to engage with the psychology of your 20s down below. Until next time, be safe, be kind, be gentle to yourself. I hope you enjoyed this little bonus episode. We will talk very, very soon.