ArticlePDF Available

Speaking the Language of Relational Maintenance: A Validity Test of Chapman's (1992) Five Love Languages


Abstract and Figures

This study examines the claims of Gary Chapman (1992) in his popular press book, The Five Love Languages: How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate. A confirmatory factor analysis showed that a five-factor fit of these data to Chapman's proposed five love languages was superior to unidimensional, three-factor, and four-factor solutions. Results showed significant relationships between the love language factors and Stafford, Dainton, and Haas' (2000) relational maintenance typology, suggesting that Chapman's love languages may reflect behaviors performed to enact intended relational maintenance.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Speaking the Language of Relational
Maintenance: A Validity Test of
Chapman’s (1992) Five Love Languages
Nichole Egbert & Denise Polk
This study examines the claims of Gary Chapman (1992) in his popular press book, The
Five Love Languages: How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate. A confirma-
tory factor analysis showed that a five-factor fit of these data to Chapman’s proposed five
love languages was superior to unidimensional, three-factor, and four-factor solutions.
Results showed significant relationships between the love language factors and Stafford,
Dainton, and Haas’ (2000) relational maintenance typology, suggesting that Chapman’s
love languages may reflect behaviors performed to enact intended relational maintenance.
Keywords: Relational Maintenance; Scale Development; Love Languages; Confirmatory
Factors Analysis
In a book that lasted 50 weeks on PublishersWeeklysbest-sellers list, The Five
Love Languages:How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate,Dr.Gary
Chapman promotes a theory that has resonated with millions of people through his
books, videos, marriage conferences, or nationally syndicated radio program. Chapman’s
(1992) thesis is based on a metaphor of an emotional ‘‘love tank.’’ He argues that
romantic partners should fill one another’s love tanks by ‘‘speaking’’ their partner’s ‘‘love
languages’’ (LLs) to enhance relational quality. As popular books and academic research
have often been at cross-purposes, the goal of this project is to test the factor structure
of items derived from Chapman’s typology and then to test the construct validity of the
new measure by comparing it to established empirical measures of related constructs.
Incorporating and testing popular press ideas through research serves several valuable
Nichole Egbert (PhD, University of Georgia) is an Assistant Professor in the School of Communication Studies
at Kent State University. Denise Polk (PhD, Kent State University) is an Assistant Professor in the Department
of Communication Studies at West Chester University of Pennsylvania. Please direct all correspondence to
Nichole Egbert at:
Communication Research Reports
Vol. 23, No. 1, January 2006, pp. 19–26
ISSN 0882-4096 (print)/ISSN 1746-4099 (online) #2006 Eastern Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/17464090500535822
functions: (a) providing an empirical check of intuitive ideas that have found favor with
the public, (b) forcing researchers to keep current with mass-mediated messages that affect
how people view relationships, and (c) enhancing the validity of relational measurement
Chapman’s Five Love Languages
According to Chapman (1992), people speak five primary LLs: words of affirmation
(encouraging messages), quality time (time spent engaged in shared activities), gifts
(tokens of affection), acts of service (help with necessary tasks), and physical touch
(hand holding to sexual intercourse). Furthermore, people tend to have one or
two favorite LLs and often show love to their partners using their own preferred
LL, but partners who enjoy higher quality relationships tend to express love accord-
ing to their partners’ preferred LLs.
Although not directly referring to relational maintenance, Chapman’s (1992)
explanations of LLs parallel descriptions of maintenance behaviors found in academic
research. Chapman refers to the term ‘‘love’’ instead, even though his purpose is not
to eliminate confusion about the meaning of the term. Throughout the book,
Chapman refers to the necessity of enacting certain behaviors to sustain one’s own
well-being, a spouse’s well being, and the well being or quality of the marital relation-
ship. Rather than to complain that love is gone or that a relationship is dead,
Chapman advises that people must make conscious efforts to speak a partner’s
desired LL. Such efforts are essential, but they do not come naturally. Maintaining
the love tank by keeping it full is as essential as maintaining the proper oil level in
an automobile (Chapman). All of these claims bear a striking resemblance to litera-
ture about relational maintenance.
Relational Maintenance Behaviors
Relational maintenance refers to behaviors enacted to preserve desired relational fea-
tures (Dindia & Canary, 1993). The use of these behaviors has been connected with
equity, love, satisfaction, and commitment (Canary & Stafford, 1992; Stafford &
Canary, 1991). Several typologies of maintenance behaviors exist (e.g., Dindia &
Baxter, 1987; Stafford & Canary, 1991), and many of these items parallel what
Chapman (1992) calls LLs.
One measure that assesses relational maintenance similar to Chapman’s (1992) LLs
is Canary and Stafford’s (1992) five-category typology for relational maintenance. The
five categories are assurances, openness, positivity, sharing tasks, and social networks.
In addition to the parallel of a five-category typology, descriptions of the items that rep-
resent the various categories also parallel one another. First, assurances provide partners
with information about their importance such as stressing relational commitment.
Similarly, Chapman claims that partners need to offer words that affirm one partner’s
importance to the other. Second, openness refers to discussing relational feelings
directly. Openness includes disclosing what a partner needs or wants from a relation-
ship. When discussing openness, Chapman refers to the need for couples to
20 N. Egbert & D. Polk
make requests of one another instead of demands. Third, Canary and Stafford define
positivity as efforts to keep interactions enjoyable like building up self-esteem by
complimenting a partner. Similarly, Chapman discusses the need to offer positive
comments. Fourth, sharing tasks involves performing instrumental activities with an
equitable approach. Chapman suggests that couples need to overcome role stereotypes
to share tasks. Fifth, social networks refers to sharing common friends to maintain the
relationship, like including other family members in activities. Likewise, Chapman
suggests that one way that couples may spend quality time together is by playing games
as a family. Stafford, Dainton, and Haas (2000) confirmed the validity of Canary and
Stafford’s five behaviors and identified advice (e.g., expressing opinions) and conflict
management (e.g., using strategies like apologizing) as two additional categories.
Relational maintenance behaviors and LLs diverge and converge in other ways as
well. For example, Dainton and Stafford (1993) suggest that maintenance involves
strategic behaviors (enacted intentionally with the relationship in mind) or routine
behaviors (enacted at a lower level of consciousness and not intended to help the
relationship). Chapman (1992) suggests that LLs are always strategic because people
must learn a partner’s LL and must make conscious efforts to speak that LL. This claim
does, however, parallel the hypothesis that a large maintenance repertoire does not
ensure the ability to select or enact an appropriate strategy (Dindia & Baxter, 1987).
In addition, Dainton’s (2000) results support Chapman’s claim about the relationship
between LL and satisfaction, in that the extent to which expectations about partner
maintenance behaviors were met related positively to relational satisfaction. Thus, fail-
ing to enact certain behaviors may cause partners to feel unloved. Dainton, however,
claims people expect their partners to perform behaviors that comprise all of the rela-
tional maintenance categories, whereas Chapman focuses on enacting behaviors in the
preferred LL categories instead of performing behaviors in all the categories.
These comparisons suggest the need for further investigation into the similarities
and distinctions between Chapman’s (1992) popular press book and academic
understandings of relational maintenance. Thus, the purpose of this study is to inves-
tigate the empirical validity of Chapman’s five LLs. Specifically, we pose the following
two research questions:
RQ1:Do Chapman’s Five LLs form five distinct and cohesive factors?
RQ2:What is the relationship between Chapaman’s five LLs and more established
measures of relational maintenance?
Students (N¼110) involved in a current dating or marriage relationship of at least
two months and who were enrolled in a basic speech course received course credit
for participating. The majority of participants (n¼70;64:8%) was female and
Caucasian (n¼95;88:0%). Other ethnic groups included African American
(n¼8;7:4%), Asian American (n¼1;0:9%), and ‘‘Other’’ (n¼4;3:7%). Most
Love Languages 21
participants were between the ages of 18 and 22 (n¼97;88:0%), but some participants
were older, aged between 23–30 (n¼10;9:3%), 30–40 (n¼2;1:9%), and over 40
years (n¼1;0:9%). Relationship length ranged from 2–6 months (n¼17;15:7%),
6 months to 2 years (n¼51;47:2%), 2–5 years (n¼35;32:4%), and over 5 years
This study employed an anonymous survey methodology to test the factor structure
and construct validity of a scale measuring Chapman’s (1992) LLs. Toward this goal,
a measure of the five LLs was: (a) developed from concepts found in Chapman, (b)
tested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and (c) analyzed for its construct
validity by comparing the LL subscales to an established measure of relational main-
tenance behaviors.
Creating a measure of behaviors relating to Chapman’s (1992) five LLs (acts of ser-
vice, physical touch, words of affirmation, quality time, and gifts), involved generat-
ing a list of 20 behaviors discussed by Chapman in his book. Twenty behaviors (four
behaviors=items for each of the five LLs) followed the stem ‘‘I tend to express my
feelings to my partner by ...’’ along with Likert-type response options (1 ¼strongly
strongly disagree to 5 ¼strongly agree; see Table 1).
Participants completed this 20-item scale of the five LLs, along with a measure of
maintenance behaviors (Stafford et al., 2000) and several demographic items. To test
the factor structure of the LL scale, a CFA helped to determine how well the items
loaded on their respective subscales. Finally, we compared the final factor model with
Stafford et al.’s relational maintenance behavior to determine the construct validity of
the five LLs.
A CFA using AMOS 5.0 (Arbuckle, 2003) helped to determine the internal consistency of
Chapman’s (1992) five LL dimensions. The v2test was significant (v2¼343:82;
df ¼165;p<:001). The ratio of the v2to the degrees of freedom was 2.08, and other
indices of fit suggested that the model did not provide an adequate fit to the data
(RFI ¼.71; CFI ¼.85; RMSEA ¼.10). To understand the factor structure better, these
fit indices were compared against several comparison models. The first comparison
model was a unidimensional model where all 20 items loaded onto the same ‘‘love lan-
guage’’ factor. In this case, the fit was worse than the five-factor model (v2¼471:14;
p<:001;df ¼170;RFI ¼:62;CFI ¼:75;RMSEA ¼:13). When examining the
factor correlations, the factors of ‘‘words’’ and ‘‘time’’ were highly intercorrelated, sug-
gesting that these two factors may be combined in a four-factor model with better fit.
However, the four-factor model did not provide better fit than the original five-factor
model tested (v2¼353:66;p<:001;df ¼166;RFI ¼:70;CFI ¼:84;RMSEA ¼:10).
Finally, a three-factor model was also tested where ‘‘gifts’’ and ‘‘touch’’ were combined
into one factor. As with the other comparison models, the five-factor fit was still slightly
better (v2¼350:16;p<:001;df ¼160;RFI ¼:70;CFI ¼:84;RMSEA ¼:10).
22 N. Egbert & D. Polk
Although the five-factor model improved the fit of the data as compared with the
unidimensional, four-factor, and three-factor models, we wanted to see how the fit
could be improved. An examination of the modification indices and item loadings
suggested that deleting one item from the ‘‘acts’’ factor would improve the model
significantly (‘‘Helping my partner out when he=she needs it’’). The resulting model
provided a better fit to the data, but was still marginal (v2¼294:63;p<:001;
df ¼147;RMSEA ¼:10;RFI ¼:73;CFI ¼:87). However, as the ratio of the v2
to the degrees of freedom was now 2.00, we argue that this model could be
considered to be a more acceptable, yet still marginal, fit to the data (see Bollen,
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities of LL Subscales
LL subscales with corresponding items M SD
I tend to express my feelings to my partner by
Acts of Service (a¼:85) 17.75 2.49
Running errands for him=her
Finishing a chore for him=her when he=she doesn’t
have time to do it
Helping my partner helps out when he=she needs it
Helping my partner keep things cleaned up
Physical Touch (a¼:77) 17.97 2.48
Hugging my partner
Giving my partner a kiss
Holding my partner’s hand
Touching my partner
Words of Affirmation (a¼:81) 16.37 3.33
Complimenting my partner
Telling my partner that I appreciate him=her
Giving my partner credit for something good he=she did
Giving my partner positive comments
Quality Time (a¼:80) 16.59 3.07
Really listening to my partner
Spending time doing something we both like
Having a quality conversation
Spending my free time with him=her
Gifts (a¼:83Þ18.38 2.90
Giving him=her a thoughtful birthday gift
Picking up a greeting card for him=her
Giving him=her a surprise present when there’s
no special occasion
Giving him=her a small present when I come
home from a trip
Love Languages 23
1989; Carmines & McIver, 1981). The resulting five subscales all demonstrated
acceptable reliability, ranging from a¼:77 [touch] to a¼:85 [acts]).
To understand how these five factors compared with an established measure of
relational maintenance, they were correlated with Stafford et al.’s (2000) relational
maintenance typology. We selected Stafford et al.’s measure because it confirmed
the validity of Canary and Stafford’s (1992) widely used five-category relational
maintenance typology (assurances, social networks, openness, positivity, and shared
tasks) and also identified two other behaviors that reflect strategic and routine main-
tenance behaviors (advice and conflict management). First-order correlations
revealed significant correlations (ranging from .21 to .52) between the LL factors
and all but one of Stafford et al.’s items. Specifically, acts and positivity were not
significantly correlated (r¼:16;p¼:10; see Table 2).
Further testing helped determine the most highly related subscales. Five regressions
were computed, one for each of the five LLs, with Stafford et al.’s (2000) seven main-
tenance behaviors as predictors (entered simultaneously). None of the seven mainte-
nance behaviors significantly predicted the words factor when controlling the other
six behaviors. However, openness significantly predicted time (b¼:36;p¼:02),
social networks significantly predicted gifts (b¼:22;p¼:02), assurances and shared
tasks predicted touch (b¼:38;p¼:02;b¼:22;p¼:04), and shared tasks and
social networks predicted acts (b¼:38;p¼:01;b¼:22;p¼:03).
Table 2 Bivariate Correlations Between LL Subscales and Stafford et al.’s (2000)
Relational Maintenance Behaviors
Love languages
(Chapman, 1992)
Relational maintenance behaviors
(Stafford et al., 2000)
1. Words 1 .75 .56 .65 .52 .32 .49 .48 .39 .39 .30 .22
2. Time 1 .54 .65 .45 .22.44 .52 .45 .33 .38 .29
3. Gifts 1 .56 .65 .26 .51 .51 .33 .32 .28 .38
4. Touch 1 .52 .25 .46 .38 .21.37 .33 .33
5. Acts 1 .23.35 .27 .28 .44 .16 .29
6. Advice 1 .45 .47 .36 .51 .49 .23
7. Assurances 1 .83 .45 .44 .43 .38
8. Openness 1 .55 .45 .48 .35
9. Conflict
1 .45 .51 .28
10. Shared tasks 1 .45 .24
11. Positivity 1 .49
12. Social networks 1
Note.Denotes that correlation is significant at the p<.05 level. Denotes that correlation is significant at the
p<.01 level.
24 N. Egbert & D. Polk
These exploratory analyses demonstrated that Chapman’s (1992) five-factor LL
model might have some psychometric validity, as compared with a unidimensional,
three-factor, and four-factor solution. Certainly, his ideas of five distinct love lan-
guages seem valid to the general public who made his book a best seller. Although
our efforts to produce a measurement instrument from his book did not conclude
with a fitting model, the data suggest that the model is close to fitting, and may
produce a valid, useable instrument when tested with a larger sample.
Furthermore, these five factors were related to an established instrument in appro-
priate ways, thereby demonstrating their construct validity. Specifically, these data
revealed significant relationships between Stafford et al.’s (2000) shared tasks with
time, social networks with gifts, assurances and shared tasks with touch, and two rela-
tional maintenance behaviors (shared tasks and social networks) with Chapman’s
(1992) acts. These subscale relationships suggest that perhaps the Stafford et al. scale
reflects the intentions of the communicator, whereas the LLs are the behaviors people
enact to carry those intentions to the recipient. For example, if partners wish to share
tasks, they would communicate this intention best by spending time with their part-
ners and performing acts of service. Similarly, to communicate that a partner has an
effective social network, giving a gift or token of affection is an appropriate behavior
to enact. Thus, according to these data, Chapman’s behaviors can be considered the
vehicle whereby people deliver to the recipient the relational maintenance items con-
structed by Stafford et al. This explanation makes the measurement of this process
slightly less abstract, a finding that could be meaningful to both empirical researchers
and the general public.
Limitations and Future Directions
Taken as a whole, the results of this study begin to paint a picture of how various
relational maintenance behaviors are desired and received by romantic partners.
One limitation to this study, however, is its homogenous college student sample.
Although traditional college students are highly invested in romantic relationships,
this sample limits our analysis because they have less relational experience, different
relational expectations, and their existing relationships tend to be less developed than
the general population’s. Future investigations should include a more diverse group
of participants so that the results are more generalizable.
Further refining the LL items used in this study could also improve the factor
structure, perhaps making the items represent behaviors that are even more concrete
and distinct, so that they form more cohesive factors. For example, an item like, ‘‘I
tend to express my feelings to my partner by giving my partner positive comments,’’
may be too conceptually broad. The factor of ‘‘words of affirmation’’ might be
defined more by adding common, affectionate phrases such as, ‘‘I love you,’’ or ‘‘I
missed you today.’’ These concrete phrases, if they demonstrate the same relationship
to the relational maintenance scale of Stafford et al. (2000) as these data did, would
Love Languages 25
further support our conclusion that LLs represent behaviors designed to communi-
cate goals related to relational maintenance.
We consider these studies important, as they help to bridge the current thinking
found in both popular and academic arenas. When issues resonate with the public
like Chapman’s (1992) LLs, communication researchers may be able to utilize these
concepts to provide new avenues for research and research dissemination instead of
working separately from the popular press. Similarly, the popular press and mental
health professionals receive valuable research findings for their own writing, which
then can be communicated to the general public in an effort to help them improve
their own lives and relationships. Thus, we hope this study serves as a springboard for
the intersection of popular and scholarly discourse on relationships.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). AMOS (Version 5.0) [Computer software]. Chicago: SmallWaters Corporation.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Canary, D. J. & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage.
Communication Monographs,59, 243–267.
Carmines, E. G. & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis of
covariance structures. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement:
Current issues (pp. 65–115). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Chapman, G. (1992). The five love languages: How to express heartfelt commitment to your mate.
Chicago: Northfield Publishing.
Dainton, M. (2000). Maintenance behaviors, expectations for maintenance, and satisfaction: Link-
ing comparison levels to relational maintenance strategies. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships,17, 827–842.
Dainton, M. & Stafford, L. (1993). Routine maintenance behaviors: A comparison of relationship
type, partner similarity and sex differences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,10,
Dindia, K. & Baxter, L. (1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing marital relationships. Jour-
nal of Social and Personal Relationships,4, 143–158.
Dindia, K. & Canary, D. J. (1993). Definitions and theoretical perspectives on maintaining relation-
ships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,10, 163–173.
Stafford, L. & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender,
and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,8, 217–242.
Stafford, L., Dainton, M., & Haas, S. (2000). Measuring routine and strategic relational mainte-
nance: Scale revision, sex versus gender roles, and the prediction of relational characteristics.
Communication Monographs,3, 306–323.
26 N. Egbert & D. Polk
... Despite the great popularity that Chapman's work had gained worldwide among both clinicians and general public, the concept of LLs remains relatively unstudied. Egbert and Polk [29] developed the Love Languages Scale based on concepts found in Chapman's [1] LLs and suggested that the five-factor LL model had some psychometric validity. A confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated significant relationship between the five LLs and Stafford, Dainton, and Haas' [30] relational maintenance typology, thus supporting their construct validity. ...
... LLs were assessed using two methods. The first was the forced-choice method used by Egbert and Polk [31], while the second one included two forms of a LL scale (LLS) requiring independent ratings of preferences, which was developed and validated by Egbert and Polk [29]. ...
... The LLS assessment [29] involved four behavioral indicators representing each of the ways to feel and express affection. In the first form of the LLS participants were asked to rate the extent to which they tend to express (or give) love to their partners by engaging in the listed behaviors. ...
Full-text available
Chapman's Love Languages hypothesis claims that (1) people vary in the ways they prefer to receive and express affection and (2) romantic partners who communicate their feelings congruent with their partner's preferences experience greater relationship quality. The author proposes five distinct preferences and tendencies for expressing love, including: Acts of Service, Physical Touch, Words of Affirmation, Quality Time and Gifts. In the present study partners (N = 100 heterosexual couples) completed measures assessing their preferences and behavioral tendencies for a) expressions of love and b) reception of signs of affection, for each of the five proposed "love languages". Relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction and empathy were also assessed. The degree of the within-couple mismatch was calculated separately for each individual based on the discrepancies between the person's felt (preferred) and their partner's expressed love language. The joint mismatch indicator was a sum of discrepancies across the five love languages. Matching on love languages was associated with both relationship and sexual satisfaction. In particular, people who expressed their affection in the way their partners preferred to receive it, experienced greater satisfaction with their relationships and were more sexually satisfied compared to those who met their partner's needs to lesser extent. Empathy was expected to be a critical factor for better understanding of and responding to the partner's needs. Results provided some support for this hypothesis among male but not female participants.
... studies conducted on the subject give suggestions that various variables related to 5 love languages should be examined, and thus a contribution should be made to the psychology literature (Bland & McQueen, 2018;Bunt & Hazelwood, 2017;Egbert & Polk, 2006). ...
... Five Love Languages Scale (Egbert & Polk, 2006). The Five Love Languages Scale is a 20-item scale scored on a 5-point Likert-type (1: strongly disagree; 5: strongly agree). ...
... In order to measure subscales in the scale, there are items such "Finishing a chore for him/her when he/she doesn't" (AS), "Giving my partner a kiss" (PT), '"Giving my partner credit for something good he/she did" (WA), "Spending my free time with him/her" (QT), and "Giving him/her a surprise present when there's no special occasion (RG). Egbert and Polk (2006) stated that the Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the scale range between α=.77 and α= .85. The Turkish version of the Five Love Languages (Dincyurek & Ince, 2018) has the same 20 items with four-subscale structure. ...
The aim of this study was to investigate the mediating role of the components of love language on differentiation of self and marital satisfaction. The sample comprised of 161 Turkish married heterosexual couples. The Common Fate Model (CFM) analysis revealed that four of the five components of love language had a mediating role. Differentiation of self positively predicted marital satisfaction and indirectly affected marital satisfaction through physical touch, words of affirmation, quality time, and receiving gifts. The findings were discussed for family therapists and cross-cultural researchers aiming to promote better marital satisfaction based on differentiation of self and love language.
... The first group investigated the factor structure and construct validity, while the second group examined the relationship between preferred love languages and relationship satisfaction (Bland & McQueen, 2018). For example, previous studies attempted to support and validate the five factors structure of Five Love Languages (Cook et al., 2013;Egbert & Polk, 2006;Polk & Egbert, 2013). Another example explored the relationship between love languages and self-regulatory behavior toward relationship satisfaction (Bunt & Hazelwood, 2017). ...
... The compatibility measurement used a forced-choice rating scale. Previous studies used a Likert scale (Surijah & Septiarly, 2016) or a rating scale (Egbert & Polk, 2006) to measure the FLL. Likert and rating scales could not determine one's dominant love language as the scales only measured the degree of agreement or level of love languages for each aspect. ...
... This result did not support the first hypothesis of this study. This finding is a contrast stark to previous researches, which supported the five factors solution (Cook et al., 2013;Egbert & Polk, 2006). However, previous studies in Indonesia demonstrated a similar pattern of rejecting the five factors model of love languages (Surijah & Kirana, 2020;Surijah & Septiarly, 2016). ...
Love is an essential part of human experience and love languages have been studied to validate its factors’ structures to explain what makes people feel loved. The current study addresses the gap that love research shall not rely on student samples and it needs to measure the actual outcome of love languages. This study aims to gather empirical evidence for love languages’ factor structure and its relation to the outcome variable. The method for this study is a quantitative survey with 250 couples reported their love languages using a rating-scale and forced-choice scale. The data analysis examined the factor structure of the love languages model and estimated the association between love languages compatibility and marital satisfaction. The factorial analysis showed that the five factors solution was not supported and love languages compatibility did not affect couples’ marital satisfaction. This result brought discussions on how popular psychology concepts need to be under the scrutiny of scientific investigation and that different contexts may have different factors on what makes people feel loved.
... While a Google search on Chapman's 5 LL model returned 117,000 links, indicating that it has reached broad audiences, little research has been conducted on the program, although some have attempted to connect Chapman's LLs to established research (Egbert & Polk, 2006;Stafford, Dainton, & Haas, 2000). There is one doctoral dissertation that studied a 5 LL program conducted with individuals living in military housing (Veale, 2006). ...
The authors describe an exploratory investigation of a relationship education program based on the Five Love Languages (5 LL) (Chapman, 2007), implemented by Extension educators in seven rural counties. Relationship assessments measured participant changes related to the quality of the primary relationship, belief in the future of the relationship, and partner empathy. Confidence in using the 5 LLs was also assessed. Two groups were compared, a “no booster” group that participated in didactic and final sessions and a “booster” group that received a book, tips, and reminders to practice the 5 LLs. Focus groups revealed how participants benefited. The results showed significant gains in knowledge of and confidence in using the 5 LLs. All participants significantly improved on partner empathy and the “booster” group showed significantly more improvement than the “no booster” group. The value to the family life education mission of Cooperative Extension is discussed, and recommendations for future research are given.
... Raising children depends on the love relationship between these children and their parents, the child who feels loved would accomplish the desired results (Nichole & Denise, 2006). The parents naturally love their children. ...
... [7] Jeannette Haviland-Jones, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University studied the scientificpowerofflowers and found that flowers create instant delight and happiness, and induce powerful positive emotions. Upon receiving a gift of flowers, female study participants responded with true smiles, showed improved episodic memory and reported positive moods that lasted even three days later [8]. M.J. Ryan, award-winning author of Giving Thanks: The Gifts of Gratitude, corroborates the findings and observations that gifts increase human connectivity and bonding: "Gift recipients experience compelling connections with givers... " [9] ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
In the modern world, the need for interacting and communicating across nations is indispensable as the undeniable result of globalization. Successful communication requires not only purely linguistic competence but also the knowledge of social norms, social values and relations between individuals known as communicative competence. Communicative competence presupposes ability to use the language correctly and appropriately. This pragmatic competence is as crucial as linguistic competence. The lack of it may lead to rudeness , misinterpretation, cultural shocks, and even communication breakdown. The study focuses on English and Vietnamese verbal expressions used in giving and receiving presents. More specifically , some similarities and differences in English and Vietnamese verbal expressions when giving and receiving presents/gifts will be given. Also, tentative explanations in terms of linguistic politeness are made. The data for this analysis are provided by the survey questionnaire that investigates verbal expressions used in giving and receiving presents on three occasions (birthday, wedding, and house-warming). The findings of the study indicate that giving and receiving presents is a sensitive and delicate communicative act with many of communicating strategies employed by both groups of informants. In addition, the cultural characteristics of each group also partly reveal through their utterances of giving and receiving presents.
Chapman’s (2015) Five Love Languages remain prevalent within popular press publications coaching individuals toward more satisfying relationships. However, the absence of empirical evidence validating the love language concept remains concerning. Using a qualitative analysis of 648 open-ended responses from 324 college-aged participants, the following study investigates the currentassumptions regarding the love language concept by inductivelytesting the accuracy of the existing love languages typology. The results demonstrate substantial support for Chapman’s (2015). The Five Love Languages remain prevalent withinpopular press publications coaching individuals toward moresatisfying relationships.
Full-text available
Love is a psychological need that necessitates reciprocation from the receiving end. This implies that love requires a language for communication. Chapman talks about five primary languages of love namely, words of affirmation, quality time, physical touch, receiving gifts, and acts of service. One of the commonly cited reasons for the breakdown of intimate relationships is a deficit in expressing and experiencing love. In the present study, a qualitative approach has been adopted to conduct personal interviews with 30 married persons in order to understand the love dynamics in operation within the context of their married lives. The data collected was analysed to elicit themes that are reflective of the operationalization of love languages. Implications of the research direct counsellors, therapists, and psychologists to psychoeducation of couples on the construct of love languages and provide tailor-made interventions for conflict-filled marriages.
Keluarga adalah tempat anak-anak tumbuh serta berkembang, selain itu wadah bagi anak untuk pertama kali mempelajari sosial budayanya. Orang tua memiliki kewajiban untuk memberikan pengasuhan terbaik melalui aspek cinta dan kasih sayang. Penelitian ini memiliki tujuan untuk menggambarkan Bahasa cinta orang tua kepada anaknya. Subjek penelitian dilibatkan sebanyak 103 individu dengan kriteria telah menjadi orang tua (baik istri maupun suami) dan telah memiliki anak. Data subjek penelitian dikumpulkan melalui pengisian kuesioner yang disebarkan secara online. Penelitian ini menggunakan teknik analisis statistik deskriptif. Hasil mengungkapkan bahwa orang tua lebih sering menggunakan bahasa cinta physical touch dan words of affirmation kepada anaknya. Hal tersebut dipengaruhi oleh faktor general seperti status pekerjaan, jumlah anak, dan usia pernikahan. Hasil tersebut masih terbatas kepada persepsi individu secara tunggal.
This article outlines a new approach to premarital intervention—the Attachment-Differentiation Premarital Model (ADPM). The ADPM was developed by drawing on existing research, clinical experience, and theoretically grounded in Bowen family systems and attachment theory. It contains seven sequential phases, each viewed as a prerequisite to the prior stage: Assessment, Empathy-Building, Communication/Conflict Management, Marital Beliefs & Values, Marital Topics, Relationship Maintenance, and Charting the Course. These phases are outlined in detail, with vignettes and special treatment considerations. Although the ADPM has a prescribed treatment plan, it is respectful of between-couple differences and thus adaptable to meet unique client/facilitator needs. Further, all ADPM materials are open access, making this model a highly accessible, practical, and theoretically-grounded option for all clinicians and facilitators.
Full-text available
Two studies were conducted to assess the relationship between expectancy fulfillment for the partner's use of relational maintenance activities and one's own satisfaction with the relationship. In Study 1, 478 people in romantic relationships completed questionnaires assessing their experience of their partner's use of maintenance activities relative to their expectations for the frequency with which maintenance should be performed. As interdependence theory predicts, the more one's experience with maintenance activities exceeded expectations, the more relational satisfaction was reported. The strongest predictors of satisfaction were the extent to which the partner's use of assurances and positivity exceeded one's expectations for these activities. In Study 2, 283 people in romantic relationships provided reports of their expectations for their partner's use of maintenance activities, as well as their perceptions of the frequency with which their partners actually engaged in maintenance behaviors. Results indicated that individuals had higher expectations for their partner's use of sharing tasks and assurances than for other maintenance behaviors. However, the perceived use of maintenance strategies was stronger in predicting relational satisfaction than were the discrepancy scores between expected and perceived use of such behaviors. Implications for an interdependence theory approach to relational maintenance are discussed.
Full-text available
In the present study, we incorporate both routine and strategic maintenance behaviors in an expanded maintenance scale. In addition, we seek to determine whether sex or gender role is a stronger predictor of maintenance behaviors, and to ascertain the extent to which maintenance predicts the relational characteristics of satisfaction, commitment, liking, and control mutuality. Data were collected from 520 married individuals. Through factor analysis, 7 maintenance items reflecting both routine and strategic enactment were identified: advice, assurances, conflict management, openness, positivity, sharing tasks, and social networks. Multiple regressions revealed that the gender role construct of femininity was the primary predictor of all 7 of these behaviors. Biological sex was a weak predictor of 2 maintenance behaviors, and was not present in the other 5 regression equations. Finally, in accordance with previous research, the use of assurances was a consistent and strong predictor of relational characteristics.
Full-text available
This study replicates and extends previous research by probing for routine behaviors that maintain relationships. In addition, maintenance behaviors of married vs dating partners are compared, and similarity of relational partners' reports of maintenance behaviors is assessed. Finally, the differences in the use of maintenance behaviors by men and women are examined. Results indicate that many of the behaviors identified in this study are similar to behaviors found in past research on relational maintenance strategies. However, sharing tasks, a behavior only infrequently mentioned in previous research, was the most frequently reported maintenance behavior, indicating that sharing tasks is characteristic of routine, rather than strategic, maintenance behavior. Results also indicate that there is little difference in maintenance behaviors according to relationship type; that relational partners' reports of maintenance behaviors are quite similar; but that there are significant differences in the behaviors listed by men and women.
This study examines the manner in which perceptions of relational maintenance strategies used in romantic dyads vary according to relationship type (married, engaged, seriously dating and dating) and gender. Additionally, this study investigates how perceptions of partners' maintenance behaviors differentially affect the relational characteristics of control mutuality, commitment, liking and satisfaction. Research assumptions were cast within a developmental framework. Five maintenance strategies were derived through factor analyses: positivity, assurances, openness, sharing tasks and social networks. Results indicate that relationship type moderately affected perceptions of partner maintenance strategies and gender weakly affected perceptions of maintenance behaviors. The findings also reveal that positivity, assurances and sharing tasks were consistent and strong predictors of control mutuality, commitment, liking and satisfaction.
Although relationship research has concentrated on relational formation and termination processes, most of the time spent in long-term relationships is devoted to relational maintenance and/or repair. The present study examines the maintenance/repair strategies reported by fifty couples (n= 100 spouses). It attempts to discover the strategies and the ways in which their number and choice are related to marital satisfaction, participation in a marital enrichment programme, length of marriage and respondent gender. Forty-nine strategies were identified and clustered into twelve superordinate strategy types. Respondents most frequently reported use of prosocial, ceremonial, communication and togetherness strategy types. More strategies were reported in accomplishing maintenance than repair of the relationship. However, the same types of strategies were reported for both maintenance and repair with the exceptions of metacommunication and anti-ritual/spontaneity strategies. The number of strategies correlated negatively with length of marriage. Implications for future research include the need for comparative work among premarital, marital and divorced couples. In addition, the need to develop understanding of such strategies for use in marital enrichment programmes is discussed.
Utilizing equity theory, this study extends previous research on maintenance strategies. The manner in which relational maintenance strategies are reported and perceived is examined. It was hypothesized that maintenance strategies are used more in equitable relationships than in relationships characterized by underbenefitedness. Further, the use of maintenance efforts by individuals in overbenefited relationships was explored. In addition, this study examined the relative contribution of self‐reported maintenance strategies, perception of partners’ maintenance strategies, and equity in predicting the relational characteristics. Overall, the level of felt equity was found to be related to individuals’ use of, and perceptions of partners’ use of, maintenance strategies in a pattern consistent with equity theory. However, the findings varied somewhat when relying on wives’ versus husbands’ equity judgments. Moreover, self‐reported maintenance strategies as well as perceptions of partners’ maintenance strategies predicted the relational characteristics of control mutuality, liking, and commitment.
Analysis of Ordinal Categorical Data Alan Agresti Statistical Science Now has its first coordinated manual of methods for analyzing ordered categorical data. This book discusses specialized models that, unlike standard methods underlying nominal categorical data, efficiently use the information on ordering. It begins with an introduction to basic descriptive and inferential methods for categorical data, and then gives thorough coverage of the most current developments, such as loglinear and logit models for ordinal data. Special emphasis is placed on interpretation and application of methods and contains an integrated comparison of the available strategies for analyzing ordinal data. This is a case study work with illuminating examples taken from across the wide spectrum of ordinal categorical applications. 1984 (0 471-89055-3) 287 pp. Regression Diagnostics Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity David A. Belsley, Edwin Kuh and Roy E. Welsch This book provides the practicing statistician and econometrician with new tools for assessing the quality and reliability of regression estimates. Diagnostic techniques are developed that aid in the systematic location of data points that are either unusual or inordinately influential; measure the presence and intensity of collinear relations among the regression data and help to identify the variables involved in each; and pinpoint the estimated coefficients that are potentially most adversely affected. The primary emphasis of these contributions is on diagnostics, but suggestions for remedial action are given and illustrated. 1980 (0 471-05856-4) 292 pp. Applied Regression Analysis Second Edition Norman Draper and Harry Smith Featuring a significant expansion of material reflecting recent advances, here is a complete and up-to-date introduction to the fundamentals of regression analysis, focusing on understanding the latest concepts and applications of these methods. The authors thoroughly explore the fitting and checking of both linear and nonlinear regression models, using small or large data sets and pocket or high-speed computing equipment. Features added to this Second Edition include the practical implications of linear regression; the Durbin-Watson test for serial correlation; families of transformations; inverse, ridge, latent root and robust regression; and nonlinear growth models. Includes many new exercises and worked examples.
This Special Issue is the result of the inaugural summit hosted by the Gallup Leadership Institute at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in 2004 on Authentic Leadership Development (ALD). We describe in this introduction to the special issue current thinking in this emerging field of research as well as questions and concerns. We begin by considering some of the environmental and organizational forces that may have triggered interest in describing and studying authentic leadership and its development. We then provide an overview of its contents, including the diverse theoretical and methodological perspectives presented, followed by a discussion of alternative conceptual foundations and definitions for the constructs of authenticity, authentic leaders, authentic leadership, and authentic leadership development. A detailed description of the components of authentic leadership theory is provided next. The similarities and defining features of authentic leadership theory in comparison to transformational, charismatic, servant and spiritual leadership perspectives are subsequently examined. We conclude by discussing the status of authentic leadership theory with respect to its purpose, construct definitions, historical foundations, consideration of context, relational/processual focus, attention to levels of analysis and temporality, along with a discussion of promising directions for future research.