Content uploaded by Zoe J. Hazelwood
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Zoe J. Hazelwood on Mar 23, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 1
Walking the walk, talking the talk: Love languages, self-regulation
and relationship satisfaction
Selena Bunt and Zoe J. Hazelwood
Queensland University of Technology
Author Note
Correspondence should be addressed to Dr Zoe Hazelwood, School of Psychology
and Counselling, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove,
Queensland, 4059. Email: z.hazelwood@qut.edu.au.
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 2
Abstract
Much clinical work has utilized Chapman’s (1995) ‘love languages’ model to promote
relationship satisfaction, yet the model remains untested. This study addressed this issue by
testing the hypothesis that couples with aligned love languages would report higher
relationship satisfaction; we also explored the role that self-regulation played in promoting
satisfaction. Sixty-seven heterosexual couples were assessed on love language preference,
self-regulation and relationship satisfaction. Results provided limited evidence that love
language alignment promotes satisfaction; rather self-regulation contributed greater variance
in satisfaction. Dyadic analyses identified that female self-regulation positively impacted
both male and female relationship satisfaction when couples had dissimilar primary love
languages, although significant actor effects were also important predictors for both genders.
The outcomes of this study suggest that the effectiveness of Chapman’s model may be
dependent upon both spouses exhibiting appropriate self-regulatory behaviors, and that
female self-regulation plays an important role in predicting relationship satisfaction for both
partners when they have different preferred love languages.
Keywords: love languages, self-regulation, satisfaction, couples, maintenance
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 3
Walking the walk, talking the talk: Love languages, self-regulation
and relationship satisfaction
Recent statistics indicate that more than one-third of all first time marriages in
developed nations end in divorce (Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation
Social Policy Division, 2010), and the rates of dissolution are even higher for cohabitating
defacto couples (Hayes, Weston, Lixia & Gray, 2010). In an attempt to stem the rate of
relationship dissolution, the Australian Government recently subsidized a ‘Stronger
Relationships’ initiative which offered thousands of couples access to relationship
counselling programs. One of the approaches that was popular with ‘Stronger Relationships’
service providers was Chapman’s (1992) love languages model. The love languages approach
is reported to be used extensively by practitioners (Cstari, 2007) and many local relationship
counselling service providers openly advocate the model on their websites (e.g.
http://www.raq.org.au/media-centre/blog/trouble-showing-your-love-five-love-languages and
http://visionpsychology.com/whats-your-love-language/).
Chapman (1995) proposed that relationships are strengthened when both partners in a
relationship ‘speak’ the same love language. Conversely, relationships are challenged when
one partner’s primary way of expressing love differs to that of the other. Chapman (1995)
suggested that if a spouse can determine the expression of love that makes one’s partner feel
most loved, greater relationship satisfaction shall be achieved. Despite its immense popularity
in the popular psychology literature and recent uptake as part of the Stronger Relationships
initiative, the love languages model has received very little empirical attention (Egbert &
Polk, 2006) and remains the subject of popular psychology and clinical observation. The aim
of the current study is to explore the extent to which couples’ love language alignment does
in fact predict relationship satisfaction; we also consider the role that behavioral self-
regulation may contribute to any association found.
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 4
The Five Love Languages of Intimate Relationships
It has been just over 20 years since Gary Chapman’s (1992) popular press book, The
Five Love Languages: How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate, was published.
The book has gathered immense popularity, lasting over 50 weeks on the best-seller’s list and
continues to rank in the top 100 best sellers on Amazon.com (Chapman, 2013; Egbert &
Polk, 2006). A google search of ‘the five love languages’ returns over 145 million results,
and more specifically a search of ‘Gary Chapman’s five love languages’ returns upwards of
789,000 results. The love languages model has resonated with millions through global book
sales, marriage conferences and a nationally syndicated radio program (Egbert & Polk, 2006).
Chapman (2013) states that while the model was derived from an Anglo setting, the concept
of how to best relate to one’s partner is universal—his book has sold over nine million copies
in English and has been translated into 49 other languages (Chapman, 2014).
The love languages model advocates that expressing ‘love’ to a romantic partner in a
way that they are best able to acknowledge and understand ultimately improves relationship
satisfaction. Chapman (1995, 2013) summarized the five love languages as acts of service
(based on the premise that ‘actions speak louder than words’, when one partner performs a
particular behavior to help the other partner); physical touch (where one partner has an
enhanced desire for physical affection); words of affirmation (positively acknowledging
one’s partner with compliments or positive feedback); quality time (a preference for spending
time with a partner and gaining their undivided attention); and gifts (gift-giving that implies
thought, effort and expense).
Scant research has examined how love languages influence relationships (Goodboy,
Meyers & Members of Investigating Communication, 2010). Two unpublished dissertations
(Thatcher, 2004; Veale, 2006) investigated the alignment of couples’ primary love languages,
or knowledge of a partner’s love language, and relationship satisfaction. Neither study
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 5
supported the validity of Chapman’s (1992) model, but the studies used narrow participant
pools and had significant methodological limitations. Thatcher (2004) included 162 married,
cohabitating, and heterosexual couples from a single Southern Baptist church. It was thought
that an over-emphasis in the church briefing of physical touch not just being sexual in nature
may have influenced a two-thirds preference for this love language. Veale (2006) likewise
found no association between love language alignment and relationship satisfaction.
Furthermore, he found that explicit knowledge of a partner’s primary love language did not
correspond with improved relationship satisfaction after three weeks. Other research has
found that it may take up to a year for changes in maintenance behaviors to transpire to
perceived improved relationship satisfaction (Weigel & Ballard-Reisch, 2008), suggesting
that Veale’s (2006) follow-up period may have been too short to appropriately assess the
impact of explicit knowledge of a partner’s preferred love language.
A published empirical study by Egbert and Polk (2006) explored the psychometric
and construct validity of Chapman’s (1992) model. The researchers viewed parallels between
Chapman’s (1992) approach and the construct of relational maintenance, the enactment of
behaviors that are proactive, communicative and function to preserve valued relationships
(Canary & Stafford, 1992). Egbert and Polk were interested in testing the commonalities
between Chapman’s ‘pop-culture’ love language categories and Canary and Stafford’s (1992)
widely used and established relational maintenance typology (assurances, social networks,
openness, positivity, shared tasks, conflict management and advice). They found love
languages highly correlated with the relational maintenance categories. That is, people who
rated highly on the relational maintenance categories also rated highly on the love language
scores; and it was suggested that Chapman’s love languages may reflect behaviors performed
to enact relational maintenance intentions. To this end, Stafford, Dainton and Haas (2009)
found that 46% of the variance in relationship satisfaction was explained by relational
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 6
maintenance activities. Hence, this research suggests that appropriately expressing a partner’s
primary love language is a relational maintenance activity that will increase relationship
satisfaction.
Love Language Alignment and Relationship Satisfaction
Bohlander (1999) defined relationship satisfaction as the extent to which an individual
believes that his or her spouse accurately perceives their needs and actively seeks to meet
those needs. Chapman (1992, 1995) proposed that people typically use all of the five love
languages, but that we each have a primary love language that we use most often. Chapman
(1995) argues that couples with aligned primary love languages, where both partners have a
preference for the same love language, should be most apt at expressing and receiving love
between one another. It is unclear what proportion of couples have aligned primary love
languages, but we propose in the current study that, based on Chapman’s argument, those
couples who are aligned will exhibit higher relationship satisfaction.
The Role of Self-Regulation
Chapman (1992) reported that from his clinical experience couples seldom have the
same primary love language, inhibiting positive relationship interactions. Hui, Bond and
Molden (2011) state that to manage conflict, partners often realize the need to change how
they perceive and relate to each other for the greater health of the relationship by engaging in
self-regulatory behaviors. To this end, approximately one-third of the variance in relationship
satisfaction has been shown to be accounted for by self-regulation (Halford & Wilson, 2009;
Wilson, Charker, Lizzio, Halford & Kimlin, 2005). Karoly (1993) defined self-regulation
holistically as those processes, internal or transactional, that enable an individual to guide
their activities over time and across changing circumstances. Hazelwood (2012) states that
the impact of self-regulation on relationship satisfaction has not been explored as reverently
as other relationship-salient variables but that there is growing interest in the role it plays.
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 7
The love languages approach would suggest that self-regulation efforts are best
tailored and expressed in behavioral forms that resonate with the partners’ primary love
language. While there are intra-individual differences in self-regulation (Halford et al., 2007),
there is general consensus that individuals are largely capable of regulating their own
behavior. This aligns with Chapman’s (2013) view that individuals are capable of employing
the self-regulatory behaviors of learning and effectively practicing their partners’ dissimilar
primary love language to increase relationship satisfaction. As such, for couples who do not
share the same love language, relationship satisfaction would seemingly hinge heavily on the
partners’ abilities to self-regulate their preferred means of expressing love by means of a
more receptive approach. Correspondingly, the role of self-regulation should have a less
significant impact on relationship satisfaction for couples who have aligned love languages as
they share the same primary style for expressing and receiving love. Past research shows that
self-regulation is a strong predictor of relationship satisfaction; and Chapman’s model
suggests that it is most important when couples have differing primary love languages.
Research Aims and Hypotheses
Despite the immense popularity of Chapman’s (1992) love languages model, there has
been minimal empirical research to support his theory. The key concept within the love
languages model is based on the premise that relationship satisfaction can be heightened if
romantic partners understand their spouse’s primary love language and can display relevant
affective behaviors. Chapman (1995) proposed that couples with aligned primary love
languages should be apt at expressing and receiving love from their partner. The foremost
aim of this study was to test this theory to determine if couples with aligned primary love
languages report higher relationship satisfaction. Secondly, this study aimed to explore if
self-regulation behaviors impact any association found between love language misalignment
and relationship satisfaction.
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 8
On the basis of Chapman’s five love language model and the relational maintenance
research presented, we hypothesized that, compared to couples who have love languages that
are misaligned, couples who have aligned love languages will be able to effectively express
and receive love with one another in a manner easily interpreted by the other partner, and
hence shall demonstrate higher levels of relationship satisfaction. As a secondary hypothesis,
based on self-regulation theory and Chapman’s claims of the necessity to “speak” to a partner
in their love language, we hypothesized that for couples with misaligned primary love
languages one’s own, and their partner’s, self-regulation behaviors will show a strong
positive influence on relationship satisfaction.
Method
Participants
In order to address criticisms regarding the narrow participant demographics of
previous studies examining Chapman’s model, participants for this study were recruited from
both the student population plus the wider general public by means of social media. The
original data set contained 210 participants of which there were 67 uniquely identifiable,
heterosexual couples (age range = 18–70 years). Male participants had a mean age of 27
years (SD = 9.45) and females had a mean age of 25 years (SD = 9.01). The majority of
couples were dating (59.7%), with the remainder in defacto relationships (18.7%), married
(11.2%) or engaged (10.4%). The average length of relationship was 4 years (SD = 5.55),
ranging from 1 month to 33 years.
Measures
Love languages. The love languages scale developed by Egbert and Polk (2006) was
used to assess the alignment of couples’ primary love languages. The 20-item questionnaire
determines one’s primary love language category by assessing the extent of agreement on a
scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) for statements such as ‘I tend to express
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 9
my feelings to my partner by running errands for her/him’. Participants also repeated the
questionnaire from their partner’s perspective. As per Chapman’s methodology, the highest
score determines a person’s primary love language and if romantic partners share the same
primary love language they are deemed to be aligned. Chapman’s love language alignment
was operationalized as a dummy coded binary variable in our analyses (0 = not aligned and 1
= aligned). The scale showed moderate reliability for both males and females (α = .67 and .61
for acts of service, .80 and .74 for physical touch, .75 and .76 for words of affirmation, .70
and .70 for quality time and .55 and .62 for gifts, respectively).
Relationship satisfaction. Relationship satisfaction was assessed using the seven-
item version of Spanier’s (1976) Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). Participants rate the extent
of agreement with their partner on a scale of 0 (always disagree) to 5 (always agree) for
items such as ‘philosophy of life’, and their overall degree of happiness in the relationship on
a scale of 0 (extremely unhappy) to 6 (perfect). Scores on the DAS-7 range from 0-36; scores
less than 21 indicate relationship distress. There was acceptable internal consistency for this
sample and reliability estimates were sound (α = .72 for males and .75 for females).
Self-regulation. Wilson et al.’s (2005) 16-item Behavioral Self-Regulation for
Effective Relationships Scale (BSRERS) was used to assess each partner’s self-regulation.
Participants rate the extent to which each statement is true for their own behavior in the
relationship on a scale of 1 (not true at all) to 5 (very true) for statements such as ‘I adjust my
goals or strategies for personal change in the light of feedback from my partner’. Scores
range from 0-80. The BSRERS consists of a two-factor structure of strategies (relationship
self-change behaviors) and effort (persistence in change efforts). The current study has strong
scale reliability (α = .91 for males and .88 for females; and for effort were .78 for males and
.83 for females).
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 10
Procedure
After seeking relevant ethical clearances, participants completed the survey
independently to their partner and entered a unique couple code to enable pairing of
responses. Completion of the online survey by each participant was taken as consent.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
The subscale scores for the five love languages, self-regulation and relationship
satisfaction are displayed in Table 1. Of the 67 couples in the study 41 (61%) were found to
have the same primary (or equal highest) love language, 35 of which were aligned on gift
giving. Women reported significantly higher self-regulation scores, F(1, 132) = 5.67, p < .05,
ηρ2 = .04. There was no significant gender difference for relationship satisfaction reported by
men and women, F(1, 132) = .88, p = .93, ηρ2 < .01. When applying Chapman’s methodology
for determining love language alignment (both partners have the same highest scoring love
language), weak statistically insignificant point-biserial correlations were found between love
language alignment and relationship satisfaction for both men (r = .16) and women (r = .20).
Weak statistically insignificant correlations were also found between partners’ mean score
differences on each of the love languages and relationship satisfaction for both men and
women, except for the love language of Quality Time. Table 2 shows a significant but weak
relationship between partners’ mean score differences on the Quality love language score and
male relationship satisfaction.
Additionally, 76% of participants accurately implicitly demonstrated knowledge of
their partner’s preferred love language upon completing the love language survey from their
partner’s perspective, but this also showed no association with relationship satisfaction, F(1,
132) = 2.64, p <. .11, ηρ2 = .02. A moderate positive statistically significant correlation
between male and female relationship satisfaction was found (r = .41). Moderate positive
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 11
statistically significant correlations were also identified between self-regulation and
relationship satisfaction for both men (r = .50) and women (r = .43).
Love Language Alignment and Relationship Satisfaction
The first hypothesis proposed that love language alignment within couples would
predict higher relationship satisfaction. The most appropriate way to test dyadic hypotheses
would be to use the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) which uses the couple as
the unit of measurement (Campbell & Kashy 2002). This can be explored using path analyses
to allow the error terms for endogenous dyadic data (e.g. male and female relationship
satisfaction) to be correlated, reflecting the non-independence of the data. However, the use
of a single exogenous variable (dummy-coded love language alignment) resulted in a
completely saturated model, χ2 (0, N = 67) = .000, p = unable to be computed; CFI = 1.000;
TLI = 0.000; RMSEA = .247; SRMR = .000, rendering goodness of fit statistics largely
useless (Byrne, 2001). Thus we conducted an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) where the
independent variable was alignment, the dependent variable was male relationship
satisfaction and the covariate was female relationship satisfaction. We then repeated this
analysis, reversing male and female relationship satisfaction. While a somewhat crude
reflection of the non-independence of the relationship satisfaction data, this approach was
deemed advantageous over conducting repeated regression analyses as it partially allowed for
the covariance between satisfaction variables to be recognized.
Both analyses returned non-significant results. There was no significant effect of love
language alignment on male relationship satisfaction when female satisfaction was included
as a covariate, F(1, 64) = 0.481, p = .490, ƞp2 = .007. The proportion of variance in male
relationship satisfaction accounted for by love language alignment was 14%. There was also
no significant effect of love language alignment on female relationship satisfaction when
male satisfaction was included as a covariate, F(1, 64) = 1.475, p = .229 , ƞp2 = .023. The
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 12
proportion of variance in female relationship satisfaction accounted for by love language
alignment was 16%. Love language alignment does not correspond with significantly higher
relationship satisfaction for male or females, when entering partner satisfaction as a covariate.
Love Language Alignment, Self-Regulation and Satisfaction
Kenny’s (2014) DyadR program was used to undertake multi-group APIM path
analyses to concurrently analyze the effect of male and female self-regulation on male and
female relationship satisfaction across both aligned and misaligned groups, as illustrated in
Figures 1 and 2. Self-regulation actor effects, that is, the influence of male self-regulation on
male satisfaction or female self-regulation on female satisfaction, were significant for both
men and women in couples where love language preference was both misaligned and aligned.
Looking at the partner effects across both misaligned and aligned groups, male self-
regulation was not a significant predictor of female relationship satisfaction however female
self-regulation did predict male relationship satisfaction but only when love language
preference was not aligned, B = 0.15, 95% CI [.06, .24], p < .05.
The relative contributions of the actor and partner effects for both men and women
within the DyadR interdependency model were examined. The ratio of the partner effect to
the actor effect, k, can reveal patterns between distinguishable dyads (Kenny & Ledermann,
2010). The partner effect of self-regulation was less than one-third of the actor effect for
women (k = .28, 95% CI [-.09, .64]), while for men the partner effect was almost two-thirds
the actor effect (k = .58, 95% CI [.12, 1.05]. These values indicate that female relationship
satisfaction can be sufficiently explained by an actor only model of self-regulation; female
self-regulation is the best predictor of female relationship satisfaction. A couple pattern best
explains male satisfaction; both male and female self-regulation are important for male
relationship satisfaction. These results are indicative of the strong influence of female self-
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 13
regulation on both male and female relationship satisfaction, in cases of love language
misalignment.
Discussion
This study explored the relationship between love language alignment, self-regulation
and relationship satisfaction. Based on Chapman’s (1992) love languages theory and the
established congruence of the five love languages with the relational maintenance construct
(Egbert & Polk, 2006), the first hypothesis predicted that love language alignment would be
associated with higher relationship satisfaction. The results did not provide support for this
hypothesis; love language alignment did not appear to promote higher relationship
satisfaction. The second hypothesis explored to what extent male and female self-regulation
may moderate relationship satisfaction when couples have misaligned primary love
languages. Using a multi-group APIM, female self-regulation but not male self-regulation
significantly moderated both male and female relationship satisfaction when couples had
misaligned love languages.
Love Language Alignment and Relationship Satisfaction
In contrast to Chapman’s (1992) five love languages theory this study found no
significant relationship between love language alignment and relationship satisfaction. This
finding was unexpected given Egbert and Polk (2006) reported moderate to high correlations
between the love languages and the relational maintenance construct, which has been linked
to increased relationship satisfaction (Goodboy et al., 2010; Stafford et al., 2009). Stafford et
al. (2009) found that 46% of the variance in satisfaction could be explained by relational
maintenance activities, while the current study found a weak insignificant relationship
between love language alignment and relationship satisfaction. Egbert and Polk (2006) found
commonalities between the love language and relational maintenance categories and Stafford
et al. (2009) linked relational maintenance to increased relationship satisfaction. Although
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 14
these studies did not specifically examine the alignment of couple’s love language or
relational maintenance scores they did explore various behaviors desired and received by
romantic partners to increase relationship satisfaction. Egbert and Polk (2006) proposed that
the significant relationship between relational maintenance and the love languages may be
explained by considering the relational maintenance scale items as reflective of intentions,
and the love languages as the behavioral enactments of such intentions. As such, it may be
interpreted from the current study that some couples happen to have the same primary love
language, but that these similar, yet undirected, behavioral enactments in the absence of
relational maintenance intentions do not result in higher relationship satisfaction.
The lack of association between love language alignment and relationship satisfaction
was consistent with previous research dissertations specifically investigating Chapman’s
(1992) love language theory (Thatcher, 2004; Veale, 2006). Veale (2006) hypothesized that it
was knowledge of a spouse’s primary love language and willingness to express behaviors
within this category, rather than love language alignment, that promoted higher relationship
satisfaction, however his research was not able to support this claim; no association was
found between explicit knowledge of a spouse’s love language and increased relationship
satisfaction. In the current study, over three-quarters of participants accurately implicitly
determined their partner’s love language, but this did not correspond with higher spousal
relationship satisfaction. Hence, love language alignment, and/or knowledge of a partner’s
love language, did not significantly improve relationship satisfaction, but it is plausible that
willingness and capability to express relevant behaviors do.
Exploring the Effects of Self-Regulation
While the finding that female, and not male, self-regulation positively impacted
relationship satisfaction for both men and women when couples had misaligned love
languages was unexpected, it was not surprising. Female spouses have long been viewed as
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 15
the barometers of relationship well-being (Bradbury, Beach, Fincham & Nelson, 1996;
Durtschi, Fincham, Cui, Lorenz & Conger, 2011). Bradbury et al. (1996) found that women
were more perceptive of relationship problems and Durtschi et al. (2011) reported that female
spouses were more responsive to the subtle details of relational interaction. It has also been
demonstrated that females feel more responsible for managing change in their relationships
(Vogel and Karney, 2002). As such, it is likely that female spouses are more aware of any
love language misalignment in their relationships, and take measures to rectify the
indifference.
In parallel with the current results, Halford and Wilson (2009) found that relationship
satisfaction was positively moderated by female self-regulation for couples who completed a
relationship education program to foster improved interpersonal relating. These findings
suggest that there is an interaction between female self-regulation and the way couples relate
to each other (based on love language alignment/misalignment or acquired relationship
education skills) which amends relationship satisfaction for both men and women.
This study showed that the actor effects of male and female self-regulation were
strong significant contributors to relationship satisfaction regardless of the couple’s love
language alignment. The partner effects analysis showed that female, and not male, self-
regulation significantly contributed to relationship satisfaction for both men and women, but
only when couples had misaligned love languages. As such, this study suggests that the
partner effects of self-regulation are insignificant when couples share the same primary love
language, but when couples have misaligned love languages female self-regulation plays an
important role in relationship satisfaction for both partners.
Practical Implications
The current study has demonstrated that neither love language alignment nor implicit
knowledge of a partner’s primary love language correspond with higher relationship
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 16
satisfaction. In the absence of empirical evidence to support the five love languages theory,
the popularity of Chapman’s model endures in book sales (Chapman, 2013) and relationship
counselling settings (Csatari, 2007). On the basis of this study, love language alignment
and/or knowledge of a partner’s love language does not enhance relationship satisfaction, but
self-regulatory behaviors do. Hence, exploration of a spouse’s love language alone may not
improve relationship satisfaction, but such programs and interventions have the capacity to be
effective if they catalyze relevant self-regulatory change behaviors.
Despite the current finding that only female self-regulation had an impact on
relationship satisfaction for love language misalignment, one’s own self-regulation, rather
than a partner’s, was the best predictor of relationship satisfaction. This is consistent with
previous research (Halford & Wilson, 2009; Hira & Overall, 2010; Wilson et al., 2005) and
has important practical implications for couples counselling. Hira and Overall (2010) found
that targeting one partner’s behavior was not an effective strategy for improving both
partners’ satisfaction; the best outcomes were achieved when both spouses were committed to
self-change. Hence, based on research relationship improvement interventions should ideally
address the self-regulatory behaviors of both spouses.
Strengths and Limitations
Limitations. The findings of this study should be considered within the context of a
number of limitations. This study utilized self-report measures which assume a degree of
insight into one’s own love language preferences, self-regulation behaviors and degree of
relationship satisfaction. Also our conclusions are based on correlational data and as such
may not be purely unidirectional. Halford, Lizzio, Wilson and Occhipinti (2007) reported a
prospective unidirectional association of self-regulation on relationship satisfaction, and
concluded that relationship satisfaction scores do not cause low reports for self-regulation. It
is possible that individuals who are unhappy within a relationship may choose to employ less
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 17
self-regulatory relational maintenance behaviours. However, Wilson et al. (2005) found that
while depressed mood was associated with lower male and female relationship satisfaction,
self-regulation contributed significantly more variance beyond mood.
Participants’ primary love languages were assessed and interpreted to be indicative of
an enduring trait. Chapman’s (1992) love language theory states that individuals develop a
subconscious primary love language during childhood and maintain this preference in adult
relationships, but there is no empirical evidence to support this position. It is plausible that
one’s primary love language preference may circumstantially change. The current study also
assessed self-regulation and relationship satisfaction scores at a static point in time, despite
studies which have shown that self-regulation and relationship satisfaction are dynamic
(Baumeister, Gaillot, DeWall & Oaten, 2006; Halford et al., 2007). Furthermore, while past
studies have shown that self-regulation explains up to one-third of the variance in relationship
satisfaction (Halford & Wilson, 2009, Wilson et al., 2005), significant life episodes such as
parenthood, relocation and depression may also produce extraneous rapid change in
relationship satisfaction.
Strengths. This study tested Chapman’s (1992) highly popular, yet empirically
unfounded, five love languages theory. The current results supported the outcomes of two
previous dissertations (Thatcher, 2004 and Veale, 2006) which found no evidence of higher
relationship satisfaction for love language alignment. Consequently, this study contributed to
better understanding the importance of the intentional basis of relational maintenance
behaviors on relationship satisfaction. This study fills an identified gap in the literature and
provides a plausible explanation of the conditional effectiveness of Chapman’s (1992)
empirically unfounded model and its associated popularity amongst clinicians and the general
public.
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 18
The unexpected, but not surprising, finding that female self-regulation moderated both
male and female satisfaction gives substance to Halford and Wilson’s (2009) study which
also found this association. It also provides further support for research that has found female
attributes to be better predictors of relationship satisfaction (e.g. Porter & Chambless, 2014).
Conclusions
The aims of this study were to empirically investigate the notion within Chapman’s
(1992) popular five love language model that love language alignment corresponds with
higher relationship satisfaction, and explore any effects that self-regulatory behavior may
have. This study found that neither love language alignment nor implicit knowledge of a
partner’s love language increase relationship satisfaction, but relevant self-regulatory
behaviors do. These findings point to the conditional effectiveness of Chapman’s five love
languages model being dependent upon spouses exhibiting appropriate self-regulatory
behaviors. Female, and not male, self-regulation was found to positively impact relationship
satisfaction for both men and women when couples had love languages that were misaligned.
In summary, this study makes a significant contribution towards investigating the
empirically unfounded, yet highly popular, five love languages model. The model has been
responsible for over nine million book sales (Chapman, 2014) and has been used extensively
in couples counselling (Csatari, 2007), and was included as an available program in the recent
$20 million Australian government subsidized Stronger Relationships initiative. The results
of this study suggest the effectiveness of Chapman’s model to improve relationship
satisfaction resides not so much in whether couples have the same primary love language but
in the ability to catalyze self-regulated appropriate interactions.
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 19
References
Baumeister, R.F., Gailliot, M., DeWall, C.N., & Oaten, M. (2006). Self-regulation and
personality: How interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion
moderates the effects of traits on behavior. Journal of Personality, 74, 1773-1801.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00428.x
Bohlander, R. W. (1999). Differentiation of self, need fulfilment, and psychological well-
being in married men. Psychological Reports, 84, 1274-1280. doi:
10.2466/PR0.84.3.1274-1280
Bradbury, T. N., Beach, S. R. H., Fincham, F. D., & Nelson, G. M. (1996). Attributions and
behavior in functional and dysfunctional marriages. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 64, 569 -576. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.64.3.569
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts,
applications, and programming. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Campbell, L. J. & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating Actor, Partner, and Interaction Effects
for Dyadic Data using PROC MIXED and HLM5: A user-friendly guide.
Personal Relationships, 9, 327-342.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in
marriage. Communication Monographs, 59, 243-267. doi:
10.1177/019251399020005006
Chapman, G. (1992). The five love languages: How to express heartfelt commitment to your
mate. Chicago: Northfield Publishing.
Chapman, G. (1995). The five love languages: The secret to love that lasts (2nd ed.). Chicago:
Northfield Publishing.
Chapman, G. (2013). What love language do you speak? Prevention, 65(7), 38. Retrieved
from http://www.rodale.com
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 20
Chapman, G. (2014). The five love languages. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from
http://www.5lovelanguages.com/resource/the-5-love-languages/
Csatari, J. J. (2007). Read her signs. Best Life, 46. Retrieved from
http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.q
ut.edu.au/docview/232001905?accountid=13380
Durtschi, J. A., Fincham, F. D., Cui, M., Lorenz, F. O., & Conger, R.D. (2011).
Dyadic processes in early marriage: Attributions, behavior, and marital quality.
Family Relation, 60(4), 421 – 434. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00655.x
Egbert, N., & Polk, D. (2006). Speaking the language of relational maintenance: A validity
test of Chapman’s five love languages. Communication Research Reports, 23(1), 19-
26. doi: 10.1080/17464090500535822
Goodboy, A. K., Meyers, S. A., & Members of Investigating Communication (2010).
Relational quality indicators and love styles as predictors of negative relational
maintenance behaviors in romantic relationships. Communication Reports, 23(2), 65-
78. doi: 10.1080/08934215.2010.511397
Halford, W. K., Lizzio, A., Wilson, K. L., & Occhipinti, S. (2007). Does working at your
marriage help? Couple relationship self-regulation and satisfaction in the first four
years of marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 185-194. doi: 10.1037/0893-
3200.21.2.185
Halford, W. K., & Wilson, K. L. (2009). Predictors of relationship satisfaction four years
after completing flexible delivery couple relationship education. Journal of Couple
and Family Therapy, 8, 143-161. doi: 10.1080/15332690902813828
Hayes, A., Weston, R., Lixia, Q., & Gray, M. (2010). Families then and now 1980-2010.
Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 21
Hazelwood, Z. J. (2012). Attachment insecurities and relationship self-regulation, In P.
Noller & G. C. Karantzas (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Couples and
Family Relationships (pp. 223-233) Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hira, S. N., & Overall, N. C., (2010). Improving intimate relationships: Targeting the partner
versus changing the self. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(5), 610-
633. doi: 10.1177/0265407510388586
Hui, C. M., Bond, M. H., & Molden, D. C. (2011). Why do(n’t) your partner’s efforts at self-
improvement make you happy? An implicit theories perspective. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(1), 101-112. doi: 10.1177/0146167211420734
Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation. A systems view. Annual Review of
Psychology, 44, 23-52. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.000323
Kenny, D. A. (2014, July). DyadR: An R Package for Dyadic Data Analysis. Presented at the
International Association for Relationship Research Conference, Melbourne,
Australia. Retrieved from http://davidakenny.net/DyadR/DyadR.htm
Kenny, D. A., & Ledermann, T. (2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in
the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 359-
366. doi: 10.1037/10019651
Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation Social Policy Division. (2010).
Marriage and divorce rates. Retrieved from
http://www/oecd.org/dataoecd/4/19/40321815
Porter, E., & Chambless, D. L. (2014). Shying away from a good thing: Social anxiety in
romantic relationships. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 70(6), 546-561. doi:
10.1002/jclp.22048
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of
marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38(1), 15-28.
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 22
Stafford, L., Dainton, M., & Haas, S. (2009). Measuring routine and strategic relational
maintenance: Scale revision, sex versus gender roles, and the prediction of relational
characteristics. Communication Monographs, 67(3), 306-323. doi:
10.1080/03637750009376512
Thatcher, D.E. (2004). The interaction between love language and marital alignment on
marital satisfaction for selected individuals. Dissertation Abstracts International,
65(11), 6093B. (UMI No. 3152566).
Veale, S. (2006). How do I love three? An investigation of Chapman’s five love languages.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 67, 4B. (UMI No. 3215981).
Vogel, D. L., & Karney, B. R. (2002). Demands and withdrawal in newlyweds: Elaborating
on the social structure hypothesis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 19,
685–701. doi: 10.1177/0265407502195008
Weigel, D. J., & Ballard-Reisch, D. S. (2008). Relational maintenance, satisfaction and
commitment in marriages: An actor partner analysis. Journal of Family
Communication, 8(3), 212-229. doi: 10.1080/15267430802182522
Wilson, K. L., Charker, J., Lizzio, A., Halford, K., & Kimlin, S. (2005). Assessing how much
couples work at their relationship: The behavioral self-regulation for effective
relationship scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(3), 385-393. doi: 10.1037/0893-
3200.19.3.385
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 23
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Love Languages, Self-Regulation and Relationship Satisfaction
Men Women
M SD 95% CI M SD 95% CI
Love Languages
Acts of Service 8.55 2.65 [7.97, 9.14] 8.64 2.41 [8.08, 9.30]
Physical Touch 6.54 2.53 [6.05, 7.23] 6.12 1.97 [5.49, 6.62]
Words of Affirmation 7.33 2.78 [6.68, 8.18] 6.87 2.19 [6.23, 7.30]
Quality Time 7.07 2.51 [6.52, 7.65] 6.27 2.00 [5.85, 6.78]
Gifts 10.91 2.87 [9.96, 11.58] 9.93 3.02 [9.31, 10.79]
Self-Regulation 53.60 1.04 [51.52, 55.69] 57.31 0.99 [55.42, 59.31]
Relationship Satisfaction 31.69 0.57 [30.55, 32.82] 31.70 0.61 [30.43, 32.85]
Note. n = 134. M = mean. SD = standard deviation. CI = confidence interval.
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 24
Table 2
Correlations for Partner’s Mean Score Differences on The Love Language
Categories and Male and Female Relationship Satisfaction
Mean Square difference between the
spouses on the love language categories:
Male Relationship
Satisfaction
Female Relationship
Satisfaction
Acts of Service
.10
-.03
Physical Touch
.07
-.17
Words of Affirmation
.21
-.17
Quality Time
.30*
-.14
Gifts
.04
-.01
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .001, n = 134.
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 25
Figure 1. APIM of actor and partner effect sizes (and standardized effect sizes) for self-
regulation on relationship satisfaction when couples’ primary love languages are aligned.
Note. * p < .05, n = 134.
LOVE LANGUAGES, SELF-REGULATION AND SATISFACTION 26
Figure 2. APIM of actor and partner effect sizes (and standardized effect sizes) for self-
regulation on relationship satisfaction when couples’ primary love languages are not aligned.
Note. * p < .05, n = 134.
