Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Gary Chapman (1992) proposed the concept of the five love languages: words of affirmation, quality time, gift giving, physical touch, and acts of service. Chapman argued that for the highest relationship satisfaction, partners should be aware of and support their partner's love language. However, this argument has received mixed empirical support. The present study proposes that analogous love languages do not influence relationship quality, but that the intentionality behind the actions within the partnership takes precedence over any categorization. This qualitative study involved college students completing individual, semi-structured interviews (N = 49). Qualitative data was analyzed using reflexive thematic analyses. Results highlighted the presence of a reciprocal relationship between intentionality and the five love languages, as it is likely the presence of intentionality within the consistent practice of the love languages ideology that promotes positive interactions and growth in relationships. The love languages primarily reflect ways to categorize different approaches to love, but do not appear to contribute to experiences within relationships. The basic understanding of Chapman's typology may still lack the behaviors observed to function well consistently under perspectives of intentionality, as well as perceptions of a partner's intentionality.

Keywords

intentionality love languages romantic relationships college students

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. The American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Bland

A. M.

McQueen

K. S.

(2018). The distribution of Chapman’s love languages in couples: An exploratory cluster analysis. Couple and Family Psychology, 7(2), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000102

Bowen

(1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Aronson.

Braun

Clarke

(2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238

Braun

Clarke

(2022). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology, 9(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000196

Bunt

Hazelwood

Z. J.

(2017). Walking the walk, talking the talk: Love languages, self-regulation, and relationship satisfaction: Love languages, self-regulation, and satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 24(2), 280–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12182

Canary

D. J.

Stafford

(1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs, 59(3), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376268

Chapman

G. D.

(1992). The 5 love languages: How to express heartfelt commitment to your mate. Northfield Publishing.

Chapman

G. D.

(2015). The 5 love languages: The secret to love that lasts. Northfield Publishing.

10.

Chopik

W. J.

(2023). Lost in translation: Matching on love languages rarely predicts relational outcomes .

11.

Denes

Dillow

M. R.

DelGreco

Lannutti

P. J.

Bevan

J. L.

(2020). Forgive and forget?: Examining the influence of blame and intentionality on forgiveness following hypothetical same-sex infidelity in the context of heterosexual romantic relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 57(4), 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1612831

12.

Egbert

Polk

(2006). Speaking the language of relational maintenance: A validity test of Chapman’s (1992) five love languages. Communication Research Reports, 23(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/17464090500535822

13.

Hughes

J. L.

Camden

A. A.

(2020). Using Chapman’s five love languages theory to predict love and relationship satisfaction. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 25(3), 234–244. https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN25.3.234

14.

Impett

E. A.

Park

H. G.

Muise

(2024). Popular psychology through a scientific lens: Evaluating love languages from a relationship science perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 32(2), 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214231217663

15.

Ince

Isik

(2022). The mediating role of five love languages between differentiation of self and marital satisfaction. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 50(4), 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2021.1930607

16.

Langlais

M. R.

Boudreau

C. L.

Asad

(2024). Tiktok and romantic relationships: A qualitative descriptive analysis. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 8(3), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/14896

17.

Malle

B. F.

Knobe

(1997). The folk concept of intentionality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(2), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1996.1314

18.

Mostova

Stolarski

Matthews

(2022). I love the way you love me: Responding to partner’s love language preferences boosts satisfaction in romantic heterosexual couples. PLoS One, 17(6), e0269429. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429

19.

Novak

J. R.

Whiting

J. B.

Brown

M. D.

Harris

S. M.

(2019). The impact of relationship education on the couple relationship: A grounded theory of intentionality and awareness. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 18(2), 104–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2017.1417939

20.

Pett

R. C.

Lozano

P. A.

Varga

(2022). Revisiting the languages of love: An empirical test of the validity assumptions underlying Chapman’s (2015) Five Love Languages Typology. Communication Reports (Pullman, Wash.), 36(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2022.2113549

21.

Polk

D. M.

(2013). Speaking the language of love: On whether Chapman’s (1992) claims stand up to empirical testing. The Open Communication Journal, 7(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874916x20130423001

22.

Stafford

(2011). Measuring relationship maintenance behaviors: Critique and development of the revised relationship maintenance behavior scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(2), 278–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510378125

23.

Surijah

E. A.

Kirana

C. T.

(2020). Five Love Languages Scale factor analysis. Makara Human Behavior Studies in Asia, 24(1), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.7454/hubs.asia.2201118

24.

Surijah

E. A.

Sari

(2018). Five love languages and personality factors revisited. ANIMA Indonesian Psychological Journal, 33(2), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.24123/aipj.v33i2.1579

25.

Vangelisti

A. L.

Young

S. L.

(2000). When words hurt: The effects of perceived intentionality on interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(3), 393–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407500173005

26.

Warner

N. Z.

Groarke

(2022). A qualitative reflexive thematic analysis into the experiences of being identified with a BRCA1/2 gene alteration: “So many little, little traumas could have been avoided”. BMC Health Services Research, 22(1), 1–1007. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08372-w

Understanding the Role of Intentionality Within the Five Love Languages Among College Students

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References