Here is an updated version with all that I have to offer....Hope it gets us closer to the finish line!

skip to main | skip to sidebar 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 as 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).

When couples feel safe secure and relaxed in their marriage it is because they are focused on their partners general well being. They are knowledgeable about their partners needs and take action to care for that partner. High quality marriages are characterized by serving each other, sharing quality time, maintaining intimacy by self disclosure and supporting each other in goals and pursuits. These behaviors are aspects of communal responsiveness or empathy. They are ways of showing love support the definition of a loving relationship.

Clark and Monin believe that other definitions of a loving/quality relationship such as, having a couple rate their marital satisfaction or counting the number of conflicts in a marriage are not as superior. Ratings do not explain why a relationship is satisfying and don’t reveal much, perhaps nothing. People may rate that their marriage is satisfying only because it is better than an alternative circumstance or that it is better than there previous relationship. A present relationship compared to previous ones may influence the certainty of the strength of the current relationship.

Couples will be more likely to be involved in communally responsive or empathetic and loving relationships when they have lower levels of rejection sensitivity and engaged in high levels of self esteem and intimacy. When there is trust for each other and a sense that partners care for each other, the formation, maintaining, and strengthening of a loving relationship is promoted. Therefore, loving relationships thrive on trust. It is through trust that allows partners to view each other in a positive way and take on the role as a forgiver, as well as maintain comfort in the relationship. Communal responsiveness is dependent upon both partners. There are more experiences of loving relationships when communal responsiveness is consistent and often repeated. Symbolic actions of love that establish good personal relationships are forgiving partners, supporting goals and activities, helping one another, and showing care through words.

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. Signs and symbols are associated with feelings. Behaviors and actions can be symbols and in this case certain behaviors symbolize love. There are different ways to do this. Supporting a partner in goals, helping each other, enjoying a shared activity, and listening are all behaviors that can symbolize love (Clark 2006).

Love Communication

Two parts to communicating love are, love felt and given to a partner and the partner receiving it as love. Although one may give love, if it is not received as such, then the interaction isn’t what it was proposed to be. In order for the person receiving the love, they must tell there partner what makes them feel loved. Love is communicated when one partner behaves or acts in a way that promotes the other person’s well being.

In a relationship where there is trust that one’s partner is watching out for the other’s welfare, there is an opportunity to take attention off of the self and focus on the other person. Love is experienced only when trust manifests itself in a relationship. Knowing that both care about themselves and each other invites feelings of comfort to self disclose of needs, feelings, and desires. This builds intimacy and promotes responsiveness. It is important to understand that responsiveness needs to be noncontingent or not done just to get something back. Partners enjoy it more when they do things without expecting anything back. A marriage is higher in the hierarchy of relationships and therefore there is greater responsibility. In this type of relationship there is more self-disclosure and people seek help from these types of relationships that take precedence over others (Clark 2006).

In marriage there is a mutual desire to feel loved and to express it. The healthiest and most loving relationships are those when there is communal responsiveness and feelings to express empathy and be in tune with each others’ needs. There are individual differences in what people perceive as communal responsiveness when it is projected toward them (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.