The Science Behind Love Languages: Research and Evidence

Introduction

When Dr. Gary Chapman introduced the concept of five love languages in his 1992 book “The Five Love Languages: How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate,” he probably didn’t anticipate that millions of people would embrace his framework while simultaneously asking a crucial question: “But is there scientific evidence for this?” More than three decades later, love languages have achieved remarkable cultural penetration—from relationship counseling offices to social media platforms where the hashtag #lovelanguages has garnered over 500 million views on TikTok alone.

This widespread adoption raises fascinating questions about the relationship between clinical wisdom and empirical validation. Can a framework be practically valuable without extensive scientific research? What does the existing research actually tell us about love languages? And perhaps most importantly, what evidence would we need to consider the theory scientifically validated?

The 5 love languages, Words of Affirmation, Quality Time, Physical Touch, Acts of Service, and Receiving Gifts, were developed primarily through Dr. Chapman’s observations as a marriage counselor and anthropologist rather than through rigorous experimental research. This origin story creates both opportunities and challenges for scientific evaluation. While the framework possesses intuitive appeal and has helped countless couples improve their communication, it faces legitimate criticism from the research community for its limited empirical foundation.

Recent comprehensive reviews of the available research present a sobering picture. As relationship scientists Emily Impett, Haeyoung Park, and Amy Muise noted in their 2024 analysis, although there is only a limited body of empirical research on love languages, the work that does exist does not provide strong support for the validity of the love languages’ core assumptions. This doesn’t automatically invalidate the framework’s practical utility, but it does highlight an important distinction between clinical observation and scientific validation.

The gap between popular adoption and research evidence reflects a broader challenge in relationship science: how do we evaluate frameworks that people find helpful but lack robust empirical support? This question becomes particularly relevant when we consider that only a handful of peer-reviewed studies have specifically examined love languages in the three decades since Chapman’s book was published, and the findings from these studies have been mixed at best.

In this comprehensive examination, we’ll explore the current state of love languages research from multiple angles. We’ll investigate the psychological theories that support core concepts underlying the framework, examine the empirical studies that have been conducted, and honestly assess the critiques from the research community. We’ll also consider how love languages relate to well-established theories in relationship science, including attachment theory, social exchange theory, and relationship maintenance research.

Our goal isn’t to prove or disprove love languages, but rather to understand what science currently tells us about this influential framework. Whether you’re a psychology student seeking evidence-based information, a skeptical reader wanting to understand the research foundation, or someone who has found love languages helpful but wants to know more about its scientific status, this analysis will provide a balanced, evidence-based perspective.

Origins and Development of Love Languages Theory

Dr. Gary Chapman’s path to developing the five love languages theory began with his background as both a Baptist pastor and trained anthropologist. Working as a marriage counselor for over three decades, Chapman observed recurring patterns in how couples expressed and interpreted love differently. His anthropological training likely influenced his approach to identifying distinct “languages” of emotional expression, drawing parallels between cultural communication differences and intimate relationship dynamics.

The 5 Love Languages emerged from Chapman’s clinical observations rather than systematic research methodology. Through counseling sessions, he noticed that relationship conflicts often stemmed from partners expressing love in ways their spouse didn’t recognize or value. A husband might work extra hours to provide financially (Acts of Service) while his wife longed for verbal appreciation (Words of Affirmation). A wife might buy thoughtful gifts while her husband craved physical affection.

Chapman’s original book, published in 1992, synthesized these observations into five distinct categories: Words of Affirmation, Quality Time, Physical Touch, Acts of Service, and Receiving Gifts. The framework proposed that each person has a primary love language—their preferred way of receiving love—and that relationships improve when partners learn to “speak” each other’s language.

The theory’s appeal was immediate and profound. The book has sold over 20 million copies worldwide and been translated into 49 languages, suggesting that couples found the framework both understandable and useful. Chapman’s clinical wisdom, based on thousands of counseling hours, resonated with people’s lived experiences of relationship communication challenges.

However, the transition from clinical practice to popular psychology happened without the typical scientific validation process. Chapman developed his typology through qualitative observation and pattern recognition rather than controlled studies, factor analysis, or systematic measurement development. While this approach provided rich clinical insight, it also meant the theory lacked the empirical foundation typically expected for psychological frameworks.

The evolution of love languages from Chapman’s counseling office to mainstream relationship advice represents both the strengths and limitations of practitioner-developed theories. The framework’s intuitive appeal and practical utility contributed to its widespread adoption, but its origins also explain why the research community has approached it with both interest and scientific skepticism.

Read our in-depth article on The 5 Love Languages here.

Psychological Theories Supporting Love Languages

While direct research on love languages remains limited, several well-established psychological theories provide theoretical support for the underlying concepts that make the framework plausible and potentially valuable.

Attachment Theory Connections

Attachment theory, developed by John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth, offers perhaps the strongest theoretical foundation for understanding why people might have different love language preferences. Research suggests that attachment styles formed in childhood between children and their caregivers impact how later relationships develop in adulthood, with secure, avoidant, and anxious attachment styles affecting relationship behaviors.

The connection between attachment styles and love languages becomes apparent when examining how early caregiving experiences might shape adult preferences for receiving love. Individuals with secure attachment styles, characterized by a healthy balance of intimacy and independence, may be more flexible in expressing and receiving love through various love languages, while those with anxious attachment styles may prefer love languages such as words of affirmation or quality time, seeking reassurance and validation from their partner.

Consider how a child who received consistent verbal praise and encouragement might develop a preference for Words of Affirmation as an adult, while someone whose caregivers showed love primarily through providing care and meeting needs might gravitate toward Acts of Service. This theoretical connection doesn’t prove love languages exist as distinct categories, but it provides a plausible developmental pathway for individual differences in love preferences.

Read our in-depth article about Adult Attachment Styles here.

Social exchange theory provides another theoretical lens through which love languages concepts make sense. This framework suggests that relationships involve exchanges of resources, and partners seek to maximize benefits while minimizing costs. Love languages could be understood as different types of relationship “currencies” that partners exchange.

From this perspective, the effectiveness of love languages isn’t about speaking a special code, but about providing resources (affection, attention, service) in forms that partners value most highly. Research on relational maintenance strategies shows that behaviors resembling love languages—such as expressions of love, spending quality time, and performing helpful tasks—strongly predict relationship satisfaction and commitment.

The social exchange framework also explains why mismatched love languages might create relationship problems. If Partner A consistently offers love through gifts (high cost, low subjective value to Partner B) while Partner B craves quality time (low cost for A to provide, high value for B), the exchange becomes inefficient and potentially unsatisfying for both parties.

Communication Research

Decades of research on relationship communication support several core assumptions underlying love languages theory. Studies consistently show that feeling understood and appreciated by one’s partner strongly predicts relationship satisfaction. The love languages framework essentially provides a structured approach to expressing appreciation in ways that partners can recognize and value.

Research on meta-communication—communication about communication—also supports the love languages approach. When couples can discuss their communication preferences explicitly, they often experience improved relationship quality. Love languages provide a vocabulary and framework for these meta-conversations, potentially making them more accessible to couples who might otherwise struggle to articulate their emotional needs.

Nonverbal communication research further supports the validity of different love expression modes. Physical touch, gift-giving, and acts of service all represent nonverbal forms of communication that can convey emotional messages. Individual differences in how people interpret and value these different communication channels align with the love languages concept.

Individual Differences Research

Personality psychology research consistently demonstrates that people vary significantly in their preferences for different types of social interaction and emotional expression. Some individuals are more verbally oriented while others prefer physical or action-based expressions of care. These documented individual differences provide a foundation for the love languages framework.

Research on cultural variations in expressing love also supports the concept that people might have different preferences for receiving affection. What feels loving in one cultural context might not translate effectively to another, paralleling the love languages idea that what feels loving to one person might not resonate with their partner.

The emerging field of relationship personalization research suggests that tailored approaches to relationship maintenance are generally more effective than one-size-fits-all strategies. This broader principle supports the love languages emphasis on understanding and adapting to partner preferences.

Empirical Research on Love Languages

Despite the widespread popularity of love languages, the body of direct empirical research remains surprisingly small. A comprehensive examination of available studies reveals both intriguing findings and significant limitations that anyone evaluating the framework should understand.

Direct Studies of Love Languages

The pioneering empirical work came from Nicole Egbert and Denise Polk (2006), who conducted the first systematic validation study of Chapman’s framework. Using confirmatory factor analysis, they found that a five-factor model provided a better fit to the data than alternative structures, suggesting that the five love languages might represent somewhat distinct constructs.

However, this initial validation came with important caveats. The study revealed substantial positive correlations (rs = .54–.75) among people’s ratings of all five love languages, contradicting the notion that people have one dominant preference and questioning the fivefold organization of the framework. Rather than having a single primary love language, participants tended to endorse all five languages as meaningful ways of expressing and receiving love.

Polk and Egbert (2013) followed up with a more comprehensive study examining Chapman’s core claim that couples with matching love languages experience higher relationship quality. Testing 83 couples, they found no support for this fundamental assumption—couples where partners had the same primary love language were no more satisfied than those with different primary languages.

A 2017 study by Bunt and Hazelwood involving 67 heterosexual couples similarly found limited evidence that synchronized love languages correlated with relationship satisfaction, while Bland and McQueen (2018) explored the distribution of love languages in couples through cluster analysis but again found no relationship satisfaction advantages for matched couples.

The methodological approaches in these studies varied significantly, with some using Chapman’s original forced-choice assessment and others developing their own Likert-type scales. Notably, despite millions of people taking Chapman’s Love Language Quiz online, there are no published findings regarding the reliability and validity of this widely-used measure.

Breakthrough Study: Mostova et al. (2022)

The landscape shifted somewhat with research by Mostova, Stolarski, and Matthews (2022), which found support for love language matching when analyzed differently. Rather than treating love languages as categorical preferences, they examined them as continuous dimensions, measuring both how much partners preferred each language and how much their partner expressed each language.

This study of 100 heterosexual couples found that when partners’ expressions aligned with their partner’s preferences across the dimensions, both relationship and sexual satisfaction were higher. The research suggested that the dimensional approach might be more accurate than trying to categorize people into single dominant love languages.

Interestingly, the study found that participants’ most frequently declared love language was quality time, followed by physical touch, acts of service, words of affirmation, and receiving gifts. The researchers noted that people could have multiple preferred love languages simultaneously, supporting a more nuanced view than Chapman’s original single-preference model.

Factor Analysis and Measurement Studies

Multiple researchers have attempted to validate the five-factor structure of love languages with mixed results. Some studies claim support for separable constructs, but results are inconsistent, with different studies finding support for three-factor, four-factor, and five-factor structures, all of which deviated significantly from Chapman’s proposed framework.

These measurement challenges reflect deeper questions about whether love languages represent truly distinct categories or overlapping dimensions of relationship behavior. The high correlations between supposedly separate love languages suggest considerable overlap in how people experience and express love.

Cross-Cultural and Demographic Research

Limited research has examined love languages across different cultural contexts or demographic groups. Some studies have found variations in love language preferences by age and gender, but the sample sizes have generally been too small to draw firm conclusions about population-level patterns.

The lack of cross-cultural research is particularly notable given that love expression varies significantly across cultures. Without examining how love languages function in different cultural contexts, it’s difficult to assess whether the framework has universal applicability or is culturally specific to Western, individualistic societies.

Longitudinal Research Gap

Perhaps the most significant limitation in love languages research is the almost complete absence of longitudinal studies. Research suggests that our preferences might change over time—what we consider important in relationships now might seem superficial years later, and love languages assessed at one time point might not remain stable.

Without longitudinal research, we cannot answer crucial questions: Do love language preferences remain consistent over time? Do couples who learn each other’s love languages show improved satisfaction over months or years? Do love languages predict relationship stability or dissolution?

Evidence for Effectiveness in Relationships

While direct research on love languages remains limited, several lines of evidence suggest that understanding and responding to partner preferences—whether labeled as love languages or not—can benefit relationships.

The Mostova et al. (2022) study provides the clearest evidence that when partners express love in ways that align with their partner’s preferences, relationship satisfaction increases. This finding supports the core practical assumption of love languages theory, even if the specific five-category framework lacks strong validation.

Research on relationship maintenance behaviors supports many concepts underlying love languages. Studies show that relational maintenance strategies such as positivity, assurance, social networks, and sharing tasks—which closely resemble aspects of words of affirmation, quality time, and acts of service—strongly predict relationship commitment, satisfaction, and stability.

The broader literature on feeling appreciated in relationships provides additional support. When people feel that their partner understands and responds to their emotional needs, relationship satisfaction typically increases. Love languages provide one framework for identifying and responding to these needs, even if other approaches might be equally effective.

Relationship counselors report that love languages concepts work as a “communication hack” that helps couples articulate their needs and create dialogue about affection preferences. The framework provides convenient shorthand for discussing emotional needs, which can be particularly valuable for couples who struggle to communicate about feelings.

However, it’s important to note that most evidence for love languages effectiveness comes from clinical reports and small-scale studies rather than large-scale intervention research. We lack randomized controlled trials comparing love languages training to other relationship enhancement approaches or control conditions.

Read our in-depth article on When Partners Have Different Love Languages: Bridging the Gap here.

Critiques and Limitations from Research

The research community has raised several important concerns about love languages theory that anyone considering the framework should understand. These critiques don’t necessarily invalidate the practical utility many people find in love languages, but they highlight significant limitations in the empirical foundation.

Methodological Limitations

The most immediate concern is the limited quantity of research. As relationship scientist Gery Karantzas noted, “not only is there very little research investigating love languages, but the research to date doesn’t strengthen belief in the powerful properties of love languages”. With fewer than a dozen peer-reviewed studies specifically examining love languages in thirty years, the evidence base remains thin.

Sample sizes in existing studies have generally been small, limiting the generalizability of findings. Most studies have focused on heterosexual couples in Western cultures, leaving questions about how love languages might function in same-sex relationships, different cultural contexts, or various relationship structures.

The measurement approaches across studies have been inconsistent, with some using Chapman’s forced-choice format and others developing new scales. This methodological variation makes it difficult to compare findings across studies or build a coherent evidence base.

Theoretical Criticisms

Recent comprehensive analysis by relationship scientists found that “despite some conceptual overlap across factors found in these studies, there are also significant inconsistencies across their results, leaving it inconclusive whether the five love languages truly represent a meaningful framework for understanding the various ways people express and feel love”.

The assumption that people have one primary love language faces particular criticism. Studies consistently show that people tend to endorse all five love languages as meaningful, with ratings averaging around 4 on a 5-point scale across all categories. This pattern suggests that the categorical approach may oversimplify how people actually experience love.

Critics also question whether five categories capture the full range of how people express and receive love. Research using bottom-up approaches to identify relationship maintenance behaviors has found seven or more categories, suggesting that Chapman’s five-factor framework might be incomplete.

Empirical Concerns

A major 2024 review concluded that “empirical research shows that successful relationships require that partners have a comprehensive understanding of one another’s needs and put in the effort to respond to those needs,” rather than simply learning to speak a partner’s love language.

The matching hypothesis—that couples with the same love languages have better relationships—has received minimal support. Three studies, including one using Chapman’s Love Language Quiz, found that couples with matching love languages were no more satisfied than couples who were mismatched.

Questions about the stability of love language preferences remain unanswered. Without longitudinal research, we don’t know whether love languages remain consistent over time or change based on life circumstances, relationship stage, or personal development.

Academic Reception

The academic relationship science community has generally approached love languages with skepticism. Recent research proposes alternative metaphors, suggesting that “love is not akin to a language one needs to learn to speak but can be more appropriately understood as a balanced diet in which people need a full range of essential nutrients to cultivate lasting love”.

Some researchers note that love languages “oversimplify relationship processes and categorize people in rigid, limited ways,” potentially reducing the complexity of human emotional needs to overly simplistic categories.

The concern isn’t necessarily that love languages are harmful, but rather that they may provide false confidence in a simple solution to complex relationship dynamics. As one researcher noted, “People are only incompatible when they are unwilling to learn and respond to their partners needs,” suggesting that willingness to adapt matters more than specific love language compatibility.

Understanding love languages within the broader context of relationship science reveals both its contributions and limitations. Several well-established frameworks offer different perspectives on relationship enhancement and maintenance.

Gottman’s Research-Based Approach

Dr. John Gottman’s extensive research on relationship predictors provides one of the most empirically supported alternatives to love languages. Based on longitudinal studies following couples for decades, Gottman identified specific communication patterns that predict relationship success or failure with remarkable accuracy.

Gottman’s concept of “love maps”—detailed knowledge of partner’s inner world—shares some similarities with love languages but emphasizes comprehensive understanding rather than categorical preferences. His research suggests that successful couples continuously update their knowledge of each other across multiple dimensions, not just preferred love expressions.

The Gottman approach focuses on observable behaviors and communication patterns that can be measured and modified through research-validated interventions. This contrasts with love languages’ emphasis on identifying fixed preferences or categories.

Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love

Robert Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love offers another research-based framework for understanding relationship dynamics. This model identifies three components of love: intimacy (emotional closeness), passion (physical and romantic attraction), and commitment (decision to maintain the relationship).

Unlike love languages, Sternberg’s theory has substantial empirical support and provides a comprehensive model for different types of love relationships. The framework suggests that the healthiest long-term relationships combine all three components, rather than focusing primarily on how love is expressed or received.

Research on social support reveals multiple ways that partners can provide meaningful assistance to each other: emotional support (empathy, caring), instrumental support (practical help), informational support (advice, guidance), and appraisal support (feedback, affirmation).

This framework overlaps considerably with love languages but provides more nuanced categories based on extensive research. Social support theory also emphasizes matching support to specific situations and needs rather than assuming static preferences.

Relational-Cultural Theory

Developed primarily by Jean Baker Miller and colleagues, Relational-Cultural Theory emphasizes the importance of mutual empathy, authenticity, and empowerment in relationships. This approach suggests that healthy relationships involve both partners growing through connection rather than simply meeting each other’s predetermined needs.

From this perspective, the focus shifts from learning to speak someone’s love language to developing deeper capacity for mutual understanding and responsive caregiving. The emphasis is on growth and flexibility rather than category identification.

Current Research Directions and Future Studies

Despite limitations in existing research, several promising directions could strengthen our understanding of how love languages concepts might function in relationships.

Methodological Improvements

Future love languages research would benefit from larger, more diverse samples that include same-sex couples, different cultural groups, and various relationship structures. Longitudinal studies tracking couples over months or years could address questions about preference stability and long-term effectiveness.

Intervention studies comparing love languages training to other relationship enhancement approaches could provide crucial evidence about relative effectiveness. Such studies would need to include appropriate control groups and measure outcomes beyond self-reported satisfaction.

Integration with Established Theories

Researchers could examine how love languages concepts relate to well-validated relationship theories. Studies exploring connections between attachment styles and love language preferences, or examining love languages within social exchange theory frameworks, could provide valuable theoretical grounding.

Cross-cultural research examining how love expression preferences vary across different cultural contexts could address questions about universal applicability versus cultural specificity.

Technology and Digital Applications

The growing use of relationship apps and digital interventions provides new opportunities for studying love languages concepts. Large-scale data collection through apps could enable researchers to examine patterns across more diverse populations and longer time periods.

Digital interventions could also facilitate randomized controlled trials of love languages training, providing stronger evidence about effectiveness compared to alternative approaches.

Conclusion: Science and Practice

The scientific evaluation of love languages reveals a complex picture that defies simple conclusions. While the research evidence for Chapman’s specific framework remains limited and mixed, the underlying concept—that people have different preferences for how they experience and express love—aligns with broader relationship science findings.

Current research suggests that love languages, as originally conceived, may oversimplify relationship dynamics. People tend to value multiple forms of love expression rather than having single dominant preferences, and successful relationships likely require comprehensive understanding rather than category-based matching.

However, the absence of strong empirical validation doesn’t negate the practical value many couples report from using love languages concepts. The framework provides accessible vocabulary for discussing emotional needs and preferences, which can facilitate important conversations about relationship maintenance and care.

As relationship counselors note, love languages work as a “communication hack” that helps couples articulate needs and create dialogue about affection preferences. Even if the specific five-category system lacks strong scientific support, the process of discussing and responding to partner preferences has clear benefits.

The most balanced approach recognizes love languages as one potentially useful tool among many for improving relationship communication, rather than as a scientifically validated solution to relationship challenges. As recent research suggests, “successful relationships require that partners have a comprehensive understanding of one another’s needs and put in the effort to respond to those needs”—goals that extend beyond any single framework.

For couples who find love languages helpful, the key is using the concepts flexibly rather than rigidly. Instead of assuming fixed categories, partners might explore how their preferences for receiving care and affection evolve over time and in different circumstances. The framework works best when it opens conversations rather than closing them with predetermined labels.

Future relationship science will likely develop more nuanced and empirically supported approaches to understanding individual differences in relationship preferences. Until then, love languages remain a popular and potentially helpful framework, best understood as clinical wisdom rather than scientific fact.

The irony, as recent researchers have noted, is that the popularity of love languages reflects genuine public hunger for relationship improvement guidance. This demand highlights the need for relationship scientists to “speak” science in a language that the public can more readily connect with and understand. Perhaps the real lesson from love languages is not about the five categories themselves, but about the importance of making relationship science more accessible and actionable for the couples who need it most.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are love languages scientifically proven?

Love languages have limited scientific support. While some studies show benefits when partners respond to each other’s preferences, most research doesn’t validate Chapman’s original five-category framework. Studies consistently find that people value all five love languages rather than having one dominant preference. However, the broader concept that people have different relationship preferences is supported by psychology research.

How many studies have been done on love languages?

Fewer than a dozen peer-reviewed studies have specifically examined love languages in the 30+ years since Chapman’s book was published. Most studies used small sample sizes and showed mixed results. The limited research available doesn’t strongly support the core assumptions of love languages theory, according to recent comprehensive reviews.

Do couples with matching love languages have better relationships?

Research shows no evidence that couples with matching love languages have better relationships. Three separate studies, including one using Chapman’s official quiz, found no difference in relationship satisfaction between matched and mismatched couples. What matters more is partners’ willingness to understand and respond to each other’s needs.

Can your love language change over time?

There’s no longitudinal research tracking whether love languages remain stable over time. However, relationship research suggests that our preferences for receiving care and affection can evolve based on life circumstances, relationship stage, and personal development. Most experts recommend viewing love languages as flexible preferences rather than fixed categories.

What do psychologists think about love languages?

Relationship psychologists are generally skeptical about love languages due to limited empirical support. Recent research suggests the framework “oversimplifies relationship processes” and that successful relationships require comprehensive understanding of partner needs rather than learning to speak a specific “language.” However, many therapists find the concepts useful as communication tools.

Is there a better alternative to love languages?

Research-backed alternatives include Gottman’s relationship method (based on decades of longitudinal studies), social support theory, and attachment-based approaches. Recent researchers suggest viewing love as a “balanced diet” requiring multiple essential nutrients rather than a single language to be learned. These frameworks have stronger scientific foundations.

Why are love languages so popular if they lack scientific support?

Love languages provide an accessible framework for discussing emotional needs and relationship preferences. They offer intuitive categories that resonate with people’s experiences and give couples vocabulary for important conversations. Practical utility doesn’t always require scientific validation, though evidence-based approaches may be more effective long-term.

Should I stop using love languages in my relationship?

If love languages help you communicate better with your partner, there’s no need to stop using them. Just recognize they’re a communication tool rather than scientific fact. Use the concepts flexibly—focus on understanding your partner’s evolving needs rather than rigidly categorizing preferences. Consider exploring additional relationship enhancement approaches as well.

References

• Bland, A. M., & McQueen, K. S. (2018). The distribution of Chapman’s love languages in couples: An exploratory cluster analysis. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 7(2), 103-126.

• Bunt, S., & Hazelwood, Z. J. (2017). Walking the walk, talking the talk: Love languages, self-regulation and relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 24(2), 280-290.

• Chapman, G. (1992). The five love languages: How to express heartfelt commitment to your mate. Northfield Publishing.

• Cook, S., Calebs, B., Busby, D., & Hurst, S. (2013). Love, sex and personal values: The role of timing in young adult sexual behavior. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 18(3), 135-143.

• Egbert, N., & Polk, D. (2006). Speaking the language of relational maintenance: A validity test of Chapman’s (1992) five love languages. Communication Research Reports, 23(1), 19-26.

• Goff, B., Goddard, H. W., Pointer, L., & Jackson, G. (2007). Measures of expressions of love. Psychological Reports, 101(1), 357-360.

• Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (1999). The seven principles for making marriage work. Crown Publishers.

• 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.

• Impett, E. A., Park, H. G., & Muise, A. (2024). Popular psychology through a scientific lens: Evaluating love languages from a relationship science perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 33(1), 23-31.

• Johnson, S. M. (2019). Attachment in psychotherapy. Guilford Press.

• Mostova, O., Stolarski, M., & Matthews, G. (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.

• Polk, D. M., & Egbert, N. (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.

• Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (Eds.). (2009). Encyclopedia of human relationships. SAGE Publications.

• Stafford, L., Dainton, M., & Haas, S. (2000). Measuring routine and strategic relational maintenance: Scale revision, sex versus gender roles, and the prediction of relational characteristics. Communication Monographs, 67(3), 306-323.

• Surijah, E. A., Septiarly, Y. L., & Sari, N. A. (2018). Validation of Chapman’s five love languages. Anima Indonesian Psychological Journal, 33(3), 131-139.

• Surijah, E. A., & Kirana, A. V. (2020). Factor analysis of love languages scale in Indonesia. Proceedings of the 4th ASEAN Conference on Psychology, Counselling, and Humanities, 395, 241-245.

• Tadros, E. (2024). Conceptualizing couples through romantic attachment and love language. The Family Journal, 32(4), 456-464.