attacking the lit review... feel free to do the same

Bradi Petersen
Kenneth Jeppesen
McKenzie Sanders
Rachael Anderson
Literature Review


Expressions of Love

An expression of love is a behavior. It is a way to show someone that one loves them though actions, and not necessarily through words (Lemieux 1996). Chapman has come up with five specific expressions of love that he categorizes as the ways to show and express love. They are called the five love languages (Chapman 1992). Research has been done to test whether there are specific expressions of love and if Chapman’s are considered to be legitimate actions of declaring ones love.
Many have tested, and explored verbal and nonverbal expressions of love, but the actual behaviors of love haven’t been looked at much. According to Lemieux in order for a behavior to be considered an expression of love, it first must be recognized and perceived by both parties as a behavior of love. It cannot be considered a behavior of love if a spouse doesn’t see it as that, or if the person giving it doesn’t give it with that intention (Lemieux 1996). Chapman insists that people have only one of the five ways of expressing and receiving love (Chapman 1992).
Lemieux did find that there are specific behaviors that people do to give and express love to others. People were anonymously asked to list out behaviors that were considered expressions of love. After the data was put together; it was found that specific answers were said continuously. Even if a person marked that they have never been in love, their answers were still consistent to those who had been in love, as how they determine behaviors of love. Lemieux put these expressions into five categories, they are as follows: first; mutual activity, which attributed to doing things together i.e. dinner and going to the movies. Second; special occasions, this related to doing special things on birthdays and anniversaries, or getting gifts on Valentine’s Day. Third; offerings, which was giving one gifts. Forth; sacrifices, with was doing things for someone, like the dishes or the laundry. Finally, selfless was the last category, which was willingness to do things with one’s partner that maybe they themselves didn’t like to do (Lemieux 1996).
Chapman’s Five Love Languages were found to be quite similar to the expressions of love given by Lemieux. Chapman concluded that the five love languages people expressed where gift giving, quality time, acts of service, words of affirmation and physical touch (Chapman 1992). Gift giving was quite similar to Lemieux’s special occasions and offerings. Quality time corresponded to mutual activity, acts of service matched up the characteristics of sacrifices and selfless. It was also found that Chapman’s love languages are valid expressions of love, and that people do in fact use these specific love languages to express love to one another (Goff 2007). There was actually another category found while testing this. It was purposed that acts of service should be split into two categories, manual service and domestic service. This is most likely due to gender roles (Goff 2007). It is important to find out what expressions are related to love, and what one can do in order to make one marriage more successful.

Marital Satisfaction

Due to the high levels of divorce these days it is imperative to find techniques that improve marital satisfaction, which in return would reduce the divorce rate. Chapman put his theory to the test. He found in his own practices that putting the five love languages to work did increase marital satisfaction. A couple in distress would come to him for help. He then would assess each of their dominant love languages. After assessing them, he asked the couples to put it to the test. For example, if a man’s wife’s primary love language was quality time, than he would ask the man to make a special effort to try and do things with his wife such as go on a walk, have a picnic, and spend time talking to one another. Consistently Chapman found that by doing this the couples marital satisfaction would increase, or their “love tank” would be full (Chapman 1992).

Symbolic Interaction Theory

According to Klein and Whites, 2002, experiment with questions they found that people may respond differently because they may interpret differently. Symbolic Interaction Theory is how individuals may interpret events or things.
The Symbolic Interaction Theory works because there are commonly shared signs and symbols. However, these commonly shared signs and symbols vary greatly depending on the culture. In each unique culture meanings are assigned to situations, and unless we understand the situation and stimulus we will not be able to understand social behavior.
Klein and White point out that George Herbert Mead is the father of symbolic interactionism. However, he was not the only one to contribute to symbolic interactionism. In the chapter they pose the question, of what it means that the symbolic interaction theory turns most of its attention to meaning. For us to understand meaning symbolic interactionists focus on how these symbols are shared.
This topic relates to the five love languages because touching, words of affirmation, service, receiving gifts, and quality time are all signs that lead to the development of a symbol, love. In order for this symbol to be created the signs must be agreed upon by convection. In our society love is symbol that is commonly shared and understood. The interaction occurs when you are giving or receiving love in the five ways named above. Although these are our signs for the symbol love, in other cultures love may be expressed differently. How is it that we obtain the symbols, beliefs, and the attitudes of our culture? As addressed by Klein and White socialization is the process in which we gain these symbols, beliefs, and attitudes of our culture.
The Symbolic Interaction Theory is constantly being used in our everyday lives. It is the interpretation of commonly shared signs and symbols throughout our culture, and other cultures abroad.

Communal Responsiveness

Empathy or communal responsiveness is what determines if there is a loving relationship. A relationship can be satisfying, but not have communal responsiveness or high feelings of love. This is because the relationship one may be in is better than another alternative, therefore it is satisfying. It may be a low quality relationship, but it is satisfying. When members in a relationship feel loved and loving, it is because there is a consistent, mutual, communal responsiveness.
Communal responsiveness means that love is felt and sent to a partner than that partner feels the love and accepts the love within oneself. There is a response to love and it is communal, meaning both partners feel it. Three processes necessary for establishing closeness or intimacy between partners are appreciation (understanding), validating, and responding communally or to talk together intimately.
Communal responsiveness is about caring. When a partner can care and will accept care, it builds trust. That is what responsiveness is dependent upon (Clark, 2006).


Hypothesis

It is hypothesized that people do have particular expressions of love that they prefer. Also, if that expression of love, or love language is acknowledged by both parties, and used in effort to show the behavior of love, than it is theorized that the marital satisfaction of the couple will be higher due to the proper expressing of that love through particular behaviors.