What is a love language? A language is words and symbols used to communicate. Love is trickier to define because of the broad range of feelings associated with love, but most would agree that it’s a combination of affection and care. Love languages have been molded into a typology; one that has categorized affection in five different ways: acts of service, quality time, receiving gifts, words of affirmation, and physical touch. Doing things for a person you care for, like making their morning coffee or running errands for them, falls under acts of service. Quality time includes giving attention to another person — making time to see them in a busy schedule or actively listening to them during a phone call are examples. Receiving gifts, expensive or homemade, can be a tangible item to show affection or a reminder of thoughtfulness and effort in the relationship. Words of affection through verbal or written compliments are a nice way to show love; sometimes, the best words of affection are “I appreciate you” from a loved one. Physical touch is another way to show love, and the brain releases happy chemicals like dopamine during hugs or hand-holding.
Concrete categories of love languages have been around for more than 30 years. They have become popular first date conversation starters along with Myer-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality types and astrological signs. Yet, like these topics, love languages are a pseudoscience, a set of beliefs that claim to be scientific but are not supported by evidence. There is no strong proof that a person has one preferred method of giving or receiving love. The five categories aren’t reliable by scientific standards. So, why do people put importance in them?
Relationship science is a relatively new discipline in the social behavior and social psychology fields. It works to explain what makes a relationship take off and maintain. As mentioned, there is a biological response when a person is in love. Heart rates rise, the neurotransmitters dopamine, oxytocin, and serotonin are released in the brain’s pleasure centers, and palms get sweaty. There’s also a sociological explanation for relationships. Ideally, romantic partners are needed to socialize and reproduce. People grow together while dating, make a commitment to each other when deciding to get married, and maintain their relationship throughout marriage and parenthood. The U.S. and worldwide average length of marriage is eight years, and the myth that 50 percent of marriages ending in divorce is just that: a myth.
The combination of biopsychosocial application to relationship science emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. Compared to biology (established before the Common Era), psychology (established roughly 150 years ago), and sociology (about 250 years old), an interdisciplinary discipline like relationship science is in its infancy. An even younger discipline is pop psychology, which isn’t known for its reliability, the extent to which a study yields the same result in repeated studies, or validity, the extent that a study measures what it claims to measure. Another necessary part of scientific evidence is operationalization, which is a clear, concise, and observable measure of a variable. Pop psychology includes personality tests, sex differences in the brain, learning styles, and the effects of smiling on a person’s mood. While these topics hold some science, they gain popularity so quickly that ample research can’t be done without bias.
While astrological signs are reliable in that a certain date correlates to a sign, they are not scientifically valid because individual personalities go beyond the descriptions in charts and readings. MBTI tests are consistent in the types of questions they ask, but minor changes in an individual’s response also change the typology they receive. This makes the validity and operationalization unclear. Love languages also fall into the pitfalls. The categories are up for interpretation and the feelings a person experiences are subjective, meaning they can’t be defined and clearly measured. They lack generalizability, the extent that results of a study can be applied to a larger group or people or situations. People are complex and don’t fit into neat, perfect boxes.
The lack of generalizability raises the question: are typologies the wrong way to approach research? To address this question, take John Cuber and Peggy Harroff’s marriage typology as an example of reliable, valid, and defined research. The research suggests five types of marriage: conflict-habituated, devitalized, passive-congenial, vital, and total marriages. Each type has a clear definition. The categories resulted from 437 interviews. Repeated interviews showed similar results, and Cuber and Harroff used this data to create the five types. Similarly, John and Julie Gottman’s research on the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse in a relationship has been tested for over 50 years. Gottman searched for patterns in behavior that were observed over time. He and his colleagues developed mathematical formulas to analyze the data collected.
The two examples show how typologies work scientifically. Decades of research reveal interesting patterns in social behavior. It seems interdisciplinary disciplines like relationship science could benefit from more research and time. With the gaining popularity in social science fields, resources are made available to curious minds. Love languages, MBTI, and astrology could break out of their pseudoscience label within the next decade if data is analyzed through a social-psychology lens. Then, introducing yourself as a Scorpio and INTJ with a passion for quality time on a first date will provide plenty of information to break the ice.
Mortimer is a guest blogger at UITAC Publishing. UITAC’s mission is to provide high-quality, affordable, and socially responsible online course materials.
Images used in this blog:
- “Best friends” by Ekaterina Shakharova is licensed on Unsplash. This image has not been altered.
- Photo by Vedrana Filipović is licensed on Unsplash. This image has not been altered.
- Photo by CHUTTERSNAP is licensed on Unsplash. This image has not been altered.
