Literature review

Bradi Petersen
Kenneth Jeppesen
McKenzie Sanders
Rachael Anderson
Literature Review



Love Languages

Goff and Goddard did a study to see if Chapman’s five love languages, i.e. physical touch, quality time, words of affirmation, receiving gifts and acts of service, were truly viable in regards to expressing love. The goal was to test whether these love languages were actually used between people, and if they were actually considered an expression of love.
Information was gathered from a medium sized university. 338 students were given a questionnaire. A lot of the questions were that of what Chapman himself asked, and provided in the back of his book, The Five Love Languages. A wide range of ages were asked ranging from 35% of the ages 18-23, 40% was 24-29 year olds, and 24% were 30 and older. The subjects also ranged from single, married, and a wide variety of ethnicities.
These five love languages were considered expressions of love, and people did use them, and want people to convey these things to them in order to feel loved. But instead of the five love languages they came up with six categories. Through the study, it was determined that people tended to see manual service and domestic service as two different things. The category of service was then separated into two groups. This is probably due to female and male perspectives on what service is to them (Goff 2007).



Expressions of Love
Lemieux tested to see if there were specific expressions of love, or if certain behaviors were perceived as an expression of love. In order for it to be considered, it must be recognized by both parties as a behavior of love.
Love could be an attitude, and emotion and a behavior. But it was important to if behavior was given any attention.
Data was gathered from 337 undergraduate students from a southeastern university. The ages ranged from 18-57. The goal was to find out what behaviors were considered an expression of love. People were asked to anonymously list what behaviors they thought expressed love, or what they would most like someone to do for them if they were in love. The second section was designed for participants to list all the behaviors they thought should be included, and finally the third part asked them how many times they had been in love, and if they were satisfied with their current relationship.
Lemieux categorized the most prominent answers into five love expressions. The findings were that one category was mutual activity. This included doing things together, going to movies and dining out. The second category was special occasions. Examples were getting gifts on Valentine’s Day or on anniversaries. The third category was offerings. This was also a form of giving, but it included surprise gifts and poetry. The forth category was sacrifice, which was doing things for one’s partner like chores and cooking. The fifth was selfless. This meant that the partner was eager to do things their partner enjoyed even if they didn’t.
This study was not studying Chapman’s five love languages; however, it did in fact find that there are behaviors of expressing love. The categories that were in Lemieux’s study were also quite similar to that of Chapman’s five. Mutual activity is similar to quality time, special occasions and offerings both correlated with gift giving. Finally selfless and sacrifice had a lot to do with acts of service.
There are in fact behaviors for expressing love. It was found that people who admitted to have never been in love gave the same types of answers of how they thought someone who loved them would act, or how they’d like them to act. The study also found that women did put a bigger emphasis on behaviors that expressed love than men did (Lemieux, 1996).
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).