c Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters Notice Please … · 2020-06-10 · Five Love...

This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:

Bunt, Selena & Hazelwood, Zoe(2017)Walking the walk, talking the talk: Love languages, self-regulation, andrelationship satisfaction.Personal Relationships, 24(2), pp. 280-290.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/98565/

c© Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under aCreative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use andthat permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then referto the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe thatthis work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected]

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12182

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Bunt,_Selena.html

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Hazelwood,_Zoe.html

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/98565/

https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12182

RUNNING HEAD: Love languages, self-regulation and satisfaction

Walking the walk, talking the talk: Love languages, self-regulation

and relationship satisfaction

Selena Bunt and Zoe J. Hazelwood

Queensland University of Technology

Love languages, self-regulation and satisfaction 2

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: [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]


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.


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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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).

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

statistically significant correlations were also identified between self-regulation and

relationship satisfaction for both men (r = .50) and women (r = .43).


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, 2 (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

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-

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.


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

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 may 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

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

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, Charker, Lizzio,

Halford & Kimlin, 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 (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 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 language 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.

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.


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

Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Research on the nature and

determinants of marital satisfaction: A Decade in Review. Journal of Marriage and

Family, 62, 964–980. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00964.x

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

Chapman, G. (2014). The five love languages. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from

http://www.5lovelanguages.com/resource/the-5-love-languages/

Cook, W. L. (1998). Integrating models of interdependence with treatment evaluations in

marital therapy research. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 529-542. doi:

10.1037/0893-3200.12.4.529

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.

Hazelwood, Z. J. (2012). Attachment insecurities and relationship self-regulation, In The

Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Couples and Family Relationships (P. Noller & G. C.

Karantzas, eds.). 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.

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


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.


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.


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.


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.

c Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters Notice Please … · 2020-06-10 · Five Love...

Documents

Transcript of c Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters Notice Please … · 2020-06-10 · Five Love...