Five Love Languages Update

💖 Introduction

This study revisited Gary Chapman’s well-known theory of the five love languages to see whether it truly reflects how people express and receive love. Researchers analysed 648 open-ended responses from 324 university students in romantic relationships to explore how love is communicated in everyday life.

📝 Method

• Participants: 324 young adults in relationships

• Approach: Instead of applying pre-set categories, the researchers used inductive analysis to allow themes to naturally emerge from the data.

⭐ Key Findings

• Chapman’s five love languages were supported: Most participants described expressions of love that aligned with Chapman’s original categories — words of affirmation, quality time, gift-giving, acts of service, and physical touch.

• A sixth love language emerged: Many participants described “emotional check-ins” or ongoing communication and presence as a distinct way of showing love, separate from the original five.

🔍 Implications

• The study confirms the relevance of the five love languages in real-life relationships.

• The emergence of a new category—emotional check-ins—suggests that our understanding of how people express love may need to expand beyond the traditional model.

🧠 Why This Matters

• For therapists, educators, and couples, this research reinforces that love languages are based in lived experience, not just pop culture.

• Recognising emotional check-ins as a meaningful expression of love could help strengthen relationships and improve communication strategies.

In short: The study confirmed Chapman’s five love languages still resonate today—but also highlighted that staying emotionally connected through regular check-ins is its own powerful way of expressing love. Perhaps it’s time we recognised a sixth love language.

Pett, R. C., Lozano, P. A., & Varga, S. (2023). Revisiting the Languages of Love: An Empirical Test of the Validity Assumptions Underlying Chapman’s (2015) Five Love Languages Typology. Communication Reports, 36(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2022.2113549