PLOS ONE

RESEARCH ARTICLE

I love the way you love me: Responding to

partner’s love language preferences boosts
satisfaction in romantic heterosexual couples
Olha Mostova ID1, Maciej Stolarski ID2*, Gerald Matthews3

1 Doctoral School of Social Sciences, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland, 2 Faculty of Psychology,
University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland, 3 Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Orlando,
FL, United States of America

a1111111111 * [email protected]
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111 Abstract
Chapman’s Love Languages hypothesis claims that (1) people vary in the ways they prefer
to receive and express affection and (2) romantic partners who communicate their feelings
congruent with their partner’s preferences experience greater relationship quality. The
OPEN ACCESS author proposes five distinct preferences and tendencies for expressing love, including:
Citation: Mostova O, Stolarski M, Matthews G Acts of Service, Physical Touch, Words of Affirmation, Quality Time and Gifts. In the present
(2022) I love the way you love me: Responding to study partners (N = 100 heterosexual couples) completed measures assessing their prefer-
partner’s love language preferences boosts
ences and behavioral tendencies for a) expressions of love and b) reception of signs of
satisfaction in romantic heterosexual couples.
PLoS ONE 17(6): e0269429. https://doi.org/ affection, for each of the five proposed “love languages”. Relationship satisfaction, sexual
10.1371/journal.pone.0269429 satisfaction and empathy were also assessed. The degree of the within-couple mismatch
Editor: Sónia Brito-Costa, Polytechnic Institute of was calculated separately for each individual based on the discrepancies between the per-
Coimbra: Instituto Politecnico de Coimbra, son’s felt (preferred) and their partner’s expressed love language. The joint mismatch indi-
PORTUGAL
cator was a sum of discrepancies across the five love languages. Matching on love
Received: December 7, 2021 languages was associated with both relationship and sexual satisfaction. In particular, peo-
Accepted: May 22, 2022 ple who expressed their affection in the way their partners preferred to receive it, experi-
enced greater satisfaction with their relationships and were more sexually satisfied
Published: June 22, 2022
compared to those who met their partner’s needs to lesser extent. Empathy was expected
Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the
to be a critical factor for better understanding of and responding to the partner’s needs.
benefits of transparency in the peer review
process; therefore, we enable the publication of Results provided some support for this hypothesis among male but not female participants.
all of the content of peer review and author
responses alongside final, published articles. The
editorial history of this article is available here:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429

Copyright: © 2022 Mostova et al. This is an open Introduction

access article distributed under the terms of the
Everyone has their own preferences for expressing and receiving romantic feelings. Based on
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
his clinical observations Chapman [1] identified five distinct ways in which people show and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original want to receive the signs of commitment. He labeled them ‘love languages’ (LLs) and proposed
author and source are credited. division into the following domains: 1) words of affirmation (verbal compliments, or words of
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
appreciation), 2) quality time (time spent together implying focused attention of both part-
within the paper and its Supporting Information ners), 3) receiving gifts (visual symbols of affection), 4) acts of service (helping mate with nec-
files essary tasks) and 5) physical touch (from holding hands to sexual intercourse).

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429 June 22, 2022 1 / 18

PLOS ONE Responding to partner’s love language preferences boosts relationship satisfaction

Funding: This work was supported by the Chapman [1] used a metaphor of a ‘love tank’, which reflected people’s emotional need to
University of Warsaw, from the funds awarded by feel loved. The ‘love tank’ of both partners is filled when each of them expresses the affection
the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in the
in a way another one prefers to receive it. According to Chapman and Southern, “once you
form of a subsidy for the maintenance and
development of research potential. identify and learn to speak your spouse’s primary love language. . .you will have discovered the
key to a long-lasting, loving marriage” [2, p. 18]. Thus, the author is convinced that conducting
Competing interests: The authors have declared
interventions designed to foster better understanding of the partner’s LLs, as well as educating
that no competing interests exist.
people on how to put this knowledge into practice would lead to a greater relationship mainte-
nance and satisfaction.
People often speak and understand their primary LLs, but they may “learn a secondary love
language” [2, p.14]. For example, the husband may be aware of his wife’s desire to receive com-
pliments–words of affirmation, although he himself prefers being physically touched. There-
fore, LLs can be divided into those in which people tend to communicate to their partners
(expressed love language) and those they prefer to receive in order to keep their emotional
‘love tank’ full (felt love language).
The assumption of basic and fundamental need for love and affection is well-established
and empirically supported [3–5]. Multiple research findings also support the notion that
human’s need for love and affection boosts both personal well-being [e.g. 6] and satisfaction in
various types of relationships [e.g. 7, 8].
Research has also addressed the effects of similarity between partners on relationship out-
comes. It is well established that similarity and convergence of different types in romantic part-
ners promotes greater relationship satisfaction. For example, similarity in communication
values, such as ego support or conflict management, has been shown to promote attraction
and greater relationship satisfaction in couples which described themselves as ‘seriously
involved’ [9].
Gonzaga and colleagues [10] also found that similarity and convergence in the personality
between partners promotes similarity in their shared emotional experiences and relationship
quality. Yet another study demonstrated that romantic couples who converge in their emo-
tional experiences manifest greater relationship cohesion, while their relationships are less
likely to dissolve [11]. In another study perceived similarity in text messaging, including fre-
quency of initiating a text message exchange and expressing affection, was associated with
greater relationship satisfaction [12].
Sexual satisfaction is another broadly-studied concept in the research on couples and
romantic relationships. Various studies found an association between sexual satisfaction and
relationship satisfaction [13, 14]. For instance, in a study conducted on 387 couples, sexual sat-
isfaction and communication independently predicted the relationship satisfaction [14]. Thus,
romantic partners who are having difficulties communicating, but are at the same time sexu-
ally satisfied, will experience greater marital satisfaction. Similarity in personality traits
between marital partners also proved to predict sexual satisfaction [15] In another study, de
Jong and Reis [16] found that complementarity, but not similarity, in sexual preferences pre-
dicted sexual satisfaction, consistent with LL hypothesis. Being aware of one’s partner’s prefer-
ences and acting accordingly may increase the couple’s sexual satisfaction.
The act of giving may potentially be more satisfying than benefiting oneself. One study [17]
found that spending more of one’s income on others predicts greater happiness than spending
money on themselves. Prosocial spending is positively correlated with greater happiness in
both poor and rich countries and even recalling the past instance of spending money on others
has a causal impact on happiness [18]. Thus, it is possible that helping others to match their
needs produces a greater emotional benefit than receiving and caring for oneself. Thus, com-
patibility in LLs may benefit the person as a giver, as well as a receiver.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429 June 22, 2022 2 / 18

PLOS ONE Responding to partner’s love language preferences boosts relationship satisfaction

Empathy is often believed to play a crucial role in relationships of various kinds and to be a
key component of effective communication. It can be defined as the “reactions of one individ-
ual to the observed experiences of another” [19, p.113]. Empathy is primarily related to one’s
ability to understand and share the emotional experiences of others [e.g., 20]. According to
Davis [19, 21], empathy can be divided into four domains, including: empathic concern, per-
sonal distress, perspective taking and fantasy.
Research demonstrates a positive relation between a partner’s empathic accuracy and their
degree of relationship satisfaction [22, 23], when it is present in mundane and nonconflictual
settings. Various studies have also found that people with higher levels of empathy are better
in detecting their partners’ needs and providing them with higher-quality advice and instru-
mental support [24–26]. On the other hand, subjective perceptions of empathy may be more
important for relationship satisfaction than empathic accuracy [27], i.e., the objective ability to
determine one’s partners views.
Empathic accuracy implies accurate perception of people’s mental states, including
thoughts and feelings [24] people that are more proficient in mentalizing may also be more
skillful in understanding their partner’s needs and preferences. Such an awareness may in turn
increase the likelihood of fulfilling such needs and make them choose and adjust their behavior
more consciously. Thus, empathy may support congruence in LLs. Although there were some
attempts to examine the factors that may moderate the relationship satisfaction when partners
are misaligned in their LLs [e.g. 28], to our knowledge, none of the previous studies have
examined the potential mediators that may drive LL matching, leading to elevated satisfaction.
An empathic individual may be both more effective in giving the form of love desired by the
partner, and in guiding the partner towards understanding their own needs.
Despite the great popularity that Chapman’s work had gained worldwide among both clini-
cians and general public, the concept of LLs remains relatively unstudied. Egbert and Polk [29]
developed the Love Languages Scale based on concepts found in Chapman’s [1] LLs and sug-
gested that the five-factor LL model had some psychometric validity. A confirmatory factor
analysis demonstrated significant relationship between the five LLs and Stafford, Dainton, and
Haas’ [30] relational maintenance typology, thus supporting their construct validity.
In one version of the scale participants responded about how they tend to feel love. To
remain consistent with the literature we followed the term ‘felt LL’ that was used in Egbert and
Polk’s [31] study to infer the preferred way of receiving love from one’s partner. However, it
should be noted that two forms of the LL scale provide the data on what makes people feel
loved without directly examining what is being preferred, which might be a potential concep-
tual problem with the LL measure.
Another study utilized measures of the autonomic nervous system, such as skin conduc-
tance and respiration rate [32]. First, 89 participants were asked to complete Chapman’s LLs
questionnaire. Next, their psychophysiological responses (skin conductance, heart rate and
pulse rate) were measured, while they were listening to the recorded imagery scripts (imaginal
exposure and guided imagery) describing each of the LLs. It was found that participant’ arousal
level increased when they were listening to their dominating or preferred LL. Specifically, a sig-
nificant association was found between hearing the imagery script of their primary LL and per-
son’s heart rate and skin conductance, although no significant increase was found in the
respiration rate. In addition, good internal consistency and reliability was reported for the
scale measurement of the preferred LL [33].
Other aspects of Chapman’s [1] claim have not been supported. Egbert and Polk [31] tested
84 university student couples, who had been together for at least two months. The aims was to
check whether partners well-matched in their reported preferences and expressions of LLs
reported greater relationship quality. They were grouped into three categories including

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429 June 22, 2022 3 / 18

PLOS ONE Responding to partner’s love language preferences boosts relationship satisfaction

matched, mismatched and partially matched; however, no significant effect of matching on

relationship quality was found. According to later research [28] sharing the same primary
(expressed) LL again did not result in relationship satisfaction. However, the researchers
found that female participants’ self-regulation significantly improved partners’ satisfaction
when their LLs were misaligned.
Veale [34] aimed to test whether becoming aware of one’s partner’s preferred LL would
result in behavioral adaptation in the absence of any identified external motivation. First, the
researcher checked whether participants felt that the love expression used by their partner was
correctly identified. Second, descriptions of the LL profiles and category membership were
provided to each participant, and the couples were given a brief overview of the love expression
behavior related to each of five categories. Additionally, the study considered whether LL
expression knowledge would influence participants’ emotional state and behavior, as well as
whether efforts to make behavioral accommodation would be noticed by their partners. The
research found no statistically significant difference between pre- and posttest means for any
of the categories, although in general respondents agreed that their LL was correctly identified.
It should be noted that LLs in the study were evaluated categorically using Chapman’s Love
Language Profile, which shares the assumption that people have one dominating LL that they
both feel and express the most.

The present study: Aims and hypotheses

Chapman’s [1] basic claim is that people who “talk” their partner’s LL are more satisfied in
their relationships, but empirical support for the LL hypothesis remains equivocal. In the pres-
ent study, we aimed to extend previous findings [e.g. 31] by adopting a novel, continuous
approach to measure match/mismatch between partners’ LLs. Treating LL mismatch as a con-
tinuous dimension may preserve information on level of mismatch that is lost by assessing it
on a categorical basis, and provide a more sensitive test of its relationships with other variables.
First, we aimed to check whether romantic partners who receive affection in ways consistent
with their partner’s style of expressing love report higher relationship satisfaction and sexual
satisfaction. We asked people separately about when they feel loved the most (i.e., preference
for receiving love) and how they prefer to express affirmation of love. The aim was to assess
the partner’s match not only in term of their dominant love language, but to also take into
account possible that one’s preferences for receiving love may differ from one’s style of
expressing and communicating love.
Second, we aimed to distinguish “actor” effects (mismatch lowers one’s own satisfaction)
and “partner” effects (mismatch lowers the other person’s satisfaction). Chapman’s [1] hypoth-
esis emphasizes the former, but there may also be a reciprocal effect, i.e., if my partner feels s/
he is not receiving the love affirmations s/he wants, the partner’s deficit in feeling loved may
lower my satisfaction. This approach provided a full picture of the interplay between both part-
ners’ expressed and felt LLs, contrary to Chapman’s assumption that people give and feel only
one dominating LL.
We aimed to test four hypotheses:
1. Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction are negatively associated with the mismatch
between the person’s felt and their partner’s expressed LLs (actor effect). This is the central
claim of Chapman [1]. His account of the LLs hypothesis does not imply that the impor-
tance of LLs varies for men and women, but we tested for possible gender differences on an
exploratory basis.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429 June 22, 2022 4 / 18

PLOS ONE Responding to partner’s love language preferences boosts relationship satisfaction

2. Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction are negatively associated with the mismatch
between the person’s expressed and their partner’s felt LLs (partner effect). The partner’s
feelings of not being adequately loved may influence actor satisfaction.
3. Matching in LLs is associated with empathy levels, given that empathy is likely to support
adaptation to the partner’s needs. Given that empathy is a multifaceted construct, we
hypothesized that its most adaptive facets, i.e., empathic concern (emotional empathy) and
perspective taking (cognitive empathy), would be the aspects related to LLs.
4. Empathy is associated with higher relationship and sexual satisfaction, as in multiple previ-
ous studies [e.g. 35–37]. We also anticipated testing the mediating role of empathy in the
LL mismatch–satisfaction association, contingent on support for the third and fourth
hypotheses.

Methods
Participants
The working sample consisted of 100 heterosexual couples (100 men, 100 women), who were
sexually active with their partners. All the participants were in a current romantic relationship
for at least 6 months. Relationship length varied between 6 months and 24 years (M = 3.5
years). The initial sample consisted of N = 110, but data from 10 couples was discarded, as
only one partner have completed the questionnaire or there was a significant amount of
incomplete or missing information for one or both partners. When an individual item was not
scored by the respondent, the average over available items was calculated and multiplyed with
the number of items in the questionnaire to replace the missing value.
Age of the participants ranged from 17 to 58 (mean: 27.34). Among male participants age
varied from 18 to 58 with a mean value of 28.58 (SD = 9.68). Female age ranged from 17 to 57
with an average value of 25.10 (SD = 7.89).
The sample was culturally diverse and it included representatives of 31 nationalities. The
most commonly occurring nationalities were Ukrainians (N = 67), Poles (N = 24), Belgians
(N = 15), Russians (N = 13), Americans (N = 12) and Swedes (N = 12). Majority of both male
and female participants indicated their marital status as never married (n = 116), followed by
married (n = 63), “other” (n = 13) and divorced (n = 8).
The participants were recruited using social media and personal connections. The online
questionnaire was distributed to volunteers that provided written consent and reported being
in the romantic relationships with their current partner for at least 6 months and were either
native speakers of English and/or communicated in English to each other, or reported having
sufficient fluency to freely and effortlessly communicate with native speakers (i.e., at least B2
level). The data were collected between October 2018 and March 2019. The subjects spent an
average of 23 minutes responding to the questionnaire and were not rewarded. The attention
check items with reverse wording were used respectively for each inventory to prevent incom-
plete and low-effort answers.
All participants gave their informed consent to participate in the study of “communication
and satisfaction among couples” that is intended to gather information about various aspects
of romantic relationships. They were also informed that their answers will not be assessed indi-
vidually and that they will not receive any feedback on their results as a couple). We asked par-
ticipants about the relationship’s length and the time since the first sexual intercourse with a
current partner to ensure that the participants were sexually active with their current partners,
as well as to eliminate the possibility of the ‘honeymoon effect’ [38]. We also asked both

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429 June 22, 2022 5 / 18

PLOS ONE Responding to partner’s love language preferences boosts relationship satisfaction

partners about their fluency in English language. Couples were asked not to discuss or com-
pare their results with each other.

Materials and procedure

LLs were assessed using two methods. The first was the forced-choice method used by Egbert
and Polk [31], while the second one included two forms of a LL scale (LLS) requiring indepen-
dent ratings of preferences, which was developed and validated by Egbert and Polk [29].
First, participant received a forced-choice LL measure [31] including the following instruc-
tions: “I feel the most loved when my partner: (1) physically touches me (i.e., gives a hug, gives
a kiss, holds my hand, touches me), (2) helps me out (i.e., running an errand, finishing a chore
for me, helping me out, helping to keep things cleaned up), (3) spends quality time with me
(i.e., really listening, doing something we both like, engages in quality conversation, spending
free time), (4) says encouraging words (i.e., compliments, expresses appreciation for me, gives
me credit for something I did, gives me positive comments), and (5) gives me gifts (i.e., a
thoughtful birthday gift, a greeting card, a present for no special reason, a gift after being
away)”. This item served only for the purpose of its later comparison to the two versions of
LLS in order to check for the consistency of participant’s responses. Thus, this tool was not
used as the main indicator of couples’ LLs in the subsequent analysis.
The LLS assessment [29] involved four behavioral indicators representing each of the ways
to feel and express affection. In the first form of the LLS participants were asked to rate the
extent to which they tend to express (or give) love to their partners by engaging in the listed
behaviors. The second form of the LLS included the same list of behaviors, but this time partic-
ipants were asked to rate the extent to which each expression makes them feel loved by their
partners. Thus, each version of LLS consisted of 20 self-report items, including four items per
each of the five LLs described by Chapman [1], e.g., “I tend to express my feeling to my partner
by telling that I appreciate him/her”. The items were rated using a five-point Likert-type scale
to assess the extent of agreement on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Egbert
and Polk [29] reported sufficient construct validity and reliability of the questionnaire in
assessing LLs.
As both partners responded to the two versions of LLS, we obtained information about how
they tend to express and prefer to feel love. We could then calculate the discrepancy between
these measurements. Thus, the degree to which one’s (partner) preferred to feel love (e.g.,
when holding hands), as rated on the Likert scale, differed from the second partner’s (actor)
degree of expressing love in this way (e.g., by holding hands) served as an indicator of extent to
which the respondents felt that their partners were meeting needs in terms of LLs. The sum of
the discrepancy scores on the five individual LL components then reflected the degree of
match or mismatch.
To remain consistent with the literature we used the term ‘felt LL’ to infer the preferred way
of receiving love from one’s partner, as we were following the term used by in the previous
studies. However, it should be noted that LLS measure provides the data on what makes people
feel loved without directly examining what is being preferred, which might be a potential con-
ceptual problem with the LL measure proposed by Egbert and Polk [29].
In particular, a value of 0 indicated a complete match between the way the respondent pre-
ferred to feel and how their partner expressed love (e.g., participant X rates preference for
being complimented as 5, and X’s partner rates his/her expression of compliments as 5). A
negative value meant that one’s partner does not express a form of love to the extent desired
(e.g. participant X rates preference for being complimented as 5, and X’s partner rates his/her
expression of compliments as 1). A positive value indicated that one’s partner overly expressed

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429 June 22, 2022 6 / 18

PLOS ONE Responding to partner’s love language preferences boosts relationship satisfaction

a form of love that the participant did not require to such an extent (e.g. participant X rates
preference for being complimented as 1, and X’s partner rates his/her expression of compli-
ments as 5). Because our interest was in overall mismatch, we converted all discrepancy scores
to absolute values and computed the item-level sum of the four scores for each LL. We then
summed these discrepancy scores for each individual, to provide an overall index of mismatch
between one’s preferences for being loved and partner’s ways of expressing love, based on the
20 item-level discrepancy scores. Our primary outcome measure was thus overall LL mis-
match; higher scores indicated greater mismatch. The internal consistency of the calculated
sum of discrepancies in our study amounted to Cronbach’s α = .61 for male and α = .70 for
female participants.
In addition, the internal consistency was confirmed to be acceptable or good for all of the
five LLs scales before they were combined to create the discrepancy scores. In particular, the
results suggested a good fit for each of the five expressed LLs: Acts of Service (α = .70), Physical
Touch (α = .89), Words of Affirmation (α = .79), Quality Time (α = .78) and Gifts (α = .77).
The internal consistency was also confirmed for the five felt LLs scales: Acts of service (α =
.74), Physical Touch (α = .85), Words of Affirmation (α = .82), Quality Time (α = .75) and
Gifts (α = .84).
Participants’ sexual satisfaction was assessed using the Index of Sexual Satisfaction ques-
tionnaire [ISS, 39]. The scale consists of 25-Likert-type items (e.g., “I enjoy the sex techniques
that my partner likes or uses”, or “I feel that my sex life is boring”) and demonstrated high
internal consistency among men (α = .91) and women (α = .92). The participants rated the
statements on a 7-point Likert-type, where 1 indicated none of the time and 7 indicated all of
the time. The items that implied lower sexual satisfaction (e.g., “I feel that my sex life is bor-
ing”) were reversed scored and the total score was calculated as a sum of all item scores. Higher
scores indicated greater level of sexual satisfaction.
Relationship satisfaction was measured using the Relationship Assessment Scale [RAS, 40],
one of the most frequently used questionnaires used for studying relationship quality. RAS
consists of seven items measuring general relationship satisfaction (e.g., “To what extent has
your relationship met your original expectations?”). Respondents are asked to rate each state-
ment using a 5-point scale. High internal consistency of the measure was confirmed for male
(α = .85) and female (α = .87) participants.
Interpersonal Reactivity Index [IRI; 19] was applied as a multi-dimensional assessment of
empathy. This widely used self-report metric comprises 28 items. The participants are asked to
rate their response on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (“does not describe me well”) to 5
(“describes me very well”). IRI consists of four distinct subscales, including: 1) perspective tak-
ing–the tendency to spontaneously adopt the psychological point of view of others; 2) fantasy–
indicating tendencies to transpose oneself imaginatively into the feelings and actions of ficti-
tious characters in books, movies, and plays; 3) empathic concern–assessing other-oriented
feelings of sympathy and concern for unfortunate others; and 4) personal distress–measuring
self-oriented feelings of personal anxiety and unease in tense interpersonal settings.
We hypothesized that perspective taking and empathic concern scales would be negatively
associated with LL mismatch, and positively related to satisfaction measures. Fantasy did not
appear directly relevant to LLs, whereas personal distress might be positively associated with
mismatch. Internal consistencies were acceptable for all four subscales among male subjects,
including perspective taking (α = .74), fantasy (α = .77), empathic concern (α = .70), and per-
sonal distress (α = .70). In female participants the indicators were acceptable for the empathic
concern (α = .80) and fantasy (α = .75) subscales, but poorer for perspective taking (α = .62)
and personal distress (α = .60).

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429 June 22, 2022 7 / 18

PLOS ONE Responding to partner’s love language preferences boosts relationship satisfaction

Results
Preliminary analyses
This section reports descriptive statistics for the study variables, as well as tests for gender dif-
ferences. We also tested within-couple correlations to investigate “assortative mating”; the
extent to which people partner with those of similar characteristics to themselves.
Table 1 shows LL preferences on the forced-choice measure. Quality time was the most fre-
quently declared LL, followed by physical touch, acts of service, words of affirmation and
receiving gifts. In accordance with prior research [31], there was no significant association
between gender and participants’ responses in the forced-choice LL measurement, χ2(1) =
14.85, p = .25 (see Table 1).
Table 2 shows means and SDs for the continuous scores. The rank-ordering of means
differed a little from the forced-choice data, in that Physical Touch was the highest-rated
preference, in both genders, although Quality Time was also highly rated. Also, contrasting
with the forced-choice data, women obtained higher mean scores in four out of five LLs
dimensions–all except for acts of service. It seems that women generally preferred to receive
love from their partners more intensely than men did (see Table 2). Table 2 also shows data
for ratings of expressed love. The order of preferences was similar to that for feeling prefer-
ences. Participants tended to express love to their partners primarily by physically touching
them, followed by spending quality time together, saying words of affirmation, doing acts of
service and giving gifts. No significant sex difference was observed for any but one
expressed LL: female participants scored slightly higher than male participants in the
expression of quality time LL.
Table 2 shows that, despite the gender differences in felt LLs, men and women did not differ
on the overall indicator of LL mismatch, i.e., inconsistency between one’s LL preferences and
the partner’s ways of expressing love. The mismatch indicator does not capture directional
biases; i.e., whether mismatch results from the partner providing a deficiency of acts of love, or
providing more than the person wants. The raw differences were calculated by subtracting the
partner’s expressed LL from the actor’s felt (preferred) level of LLs. Positive values indicate
deficiency, while negative values signify excess. The analysis demonstrated that the female par-
ticipants generally experienced a "lack" in terms of their preferred levels of receiving LLs, par-
ticularly in the case of Quality Time. On the other hand, male participants seemed to perceive
or feel the affection to a lesser extent than their female partners reported expressing it, thus
indicating an "excess". However, this was not the case for men’s Acts of Service LL.
Table 2 also shows the cross-gender correlations for LLs. Overall LL mismatch was quite
substantially correlated across the couples. However, at the level of individual feelings and
expressions, only two out of five LLs–acts of service and gifts–showed significant correlations
(assortative mating). Thus, the least valued LLs showed assortative mating but the most valued
did not, for both feelings and expressions.
Table 2 also provides descriptive statistics for the satisfaction and empathy variables.
There were no significant gender differences in satisfaction, but consistent with other

Table 1. Results of chi-square test and descriptive statistics for gender differences.
Physical touch Acts of Service Quality Time Words of Affirmation Receiving Gifts
Men 28 (28%) 14 (14%) 42 (42%) 16 (16%) 0 (0%)
Women 30 (30%) 14 (14%) 41 (41%) 11 (11%) 4 (4%)

Note. χ2(1) = 9.52, p = .25. Numbers in parentheses indicate column percentages.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429.t001

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429 June 22, 2022 8 / 18

PLOS ONE Responding to partner’s love language preferences boosts relationship satisfaction

Table 2. Descriptive statistics, between-group mean comparison, and Pearson’s correlation coefficient N = 100 couples.
Women Men
M SD M SD T G r
Relationship Satisfaction 4.22 0.67 4.26 0.65 .52 −0.06 .46��
Sexual Satisfaction 5.78 0.82 5.77 0.80 .12 0.01 .43��
E Acts of Service 3.80 0.75 3.90 0.72 1.16 −0.14 .24��
E Physical Touch 4.66 0.66 4.50 0.64 −1.68 0.25 −.01
E Words of Affirmation 4.31 0.62 4.28 0.71 −.34 0.04 .11
E Quality Time 4.50 0.55 4.31 0.73 −2.04� 0.29 −.04
E Gifts 3.57 0.91 3.54 0.91 .29 0.03 .34��
F Acts of Service 3.99 0.74 3.86 0.78 −1.38 0.17 .22�
F Physical Touch 4.67 0.56 4.44 0.67 −2.77� 0.38 .10
F Words of Affirmation 4.46 0.63 4.15 0.73 −3.32� 0.47 .09
�
F Quality Time 4.62 0.45 4.30 0.66 −4.15 0.56 .01
F Gifts 3.62 0.95 3.31 1.07 −2.50� 0.30 .26��
LL Mismatch 3.32 2.13 3.61 1.95 1.43 0.14 .50��
��
Perspective Taking 3.84 0.59 3.59 0.70 −2.68 0.39 −.05
Fantasy 3.71 0.76 3.23 0.80 −4.85�� 0.62 .17
Empathic Concern 3.89 0.71 3.31 0.67 −6.66�� 0.84 .22�
Personal distress 2.95 0.61 2.46 0.68 −5.70�� 0.76 .01

Note. E = expressed; F = felt; LLs = love languages. LL Mismatch reflects the misfit between one’s felt and their partner’s expressed love languages accumulated for all
LLs; higher values indicate poorer fit. Hedges’ g is an effect size indicator endorsed for paired samples t-test (see King & Minium, 2003)
�
p < .05,
��
p < .01.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429.t002

studies [e.g. 41] female participants’ advantage in empathy was observed across all the IRI
dimensions. Of the IRI scales, only empathic concern showed a significant though small-
magnitude correlation.

Hypotheses testing
In line with our first hypothesis, we obtained a significant negative association between rela-
tionship satisfaction and the LL mismatch indicator, in both men and women (see Table 3).
Thus, the greater the discrepancy between preferred and felt LLs, the less satisfied the partici-
pants were with their relationships. Similar associations were observed for sexual satisfaction.
The actor effects of LL mismatch were stronger in men, particularly for sexual satisfaction, for
which the correlations were -.37 (men) and -.21 (women).
Discrepancies in three LLs appeared to be particularly important for participants’ relation-
ship and sexual satisfaction (see S1 Appendix). Specifically, mismatch in Physical Touch,
Words of Affirmation and Quality Time LLs separately were significantly associated with both
male and female partners’ relationship satisfaction. Each of these love languages separately was
also significantly associated with men’s sexual satisfaction. However, among female partici-
pants this association was only significant for the Physical Touch and Quality Time LLs, and
their sexual satisfaction.
In addition, supporting the second hypothesis, partner effects proved significant–the
respondent’s satisfaction with their relationship was associated with their partner’s LL mis-
match. Partner effects were significant for both men and women. It may be as important to
properly respond to the partner’s LL needs as to have one’s own LL preferences satisfied.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429 June 22, 2022 9 / 18

PLOS ONE Responding to partner’s love language preferences boosts relationship satisfaction

Table 3. Bivariate correlations and internal consistencies (α) for scales included in the present study.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12 13. 14.
Men
1. LL Mismatch ---
2. Relationship satisfaction -.36�� (.85)
��
3. Sexual satisfaction -.37 .67�� (.91)
��
4. Empathic concern -.27 -.02 .14 (.70)
5. Perspective taking -.34�� .17 .29�� .46�� (.74)
��
6. Fantasy -.28 -.02 .07 .46��� .34�� (.77)
��
7. Personal distress -.18 -.09 -.09 .27 .04 .30�� (.70)
Women
8. LL Mismatch .50�� -.40�� -.40�� -.16 -.26�� -.29�� -.12 ---
9. Relationship satisfaction -.31�� .46�� .34�� .08 .19 .13 .00 -.30�� (.87)
� �� �� ��
10. Sexual satisfaction -.25 .32 .43 -.03 .08 .00 -.07 -.21 .55�� (.92)
�
11. Empathic concern -.17 -.16 .00 .22 .01 .07 .09 -.07 .02 .18 (.80)
12. Perspective taking -.12 -.05 -.10 .02 -.05 .12 .13 -.05 -.06 -.02 .32�� (.62)
13. Fantasy -.10 -.13 -.07 .23� .15 .17 .29�� -.02 .19 .19 .40�� .13 (.75)
14. Personal distress .03 -.20� -.06 .02 -.07 -.01 .10 -.23� -.24� -.13 .16 -.10 .13 (.60)

Note. Partner effects are shadowed in light grey. Assortative mating effects are provided in bold font.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429.t003

The third hypothesis was that cognitive and emotional facets of empathy would be associ-
ated with lower LL mismatch (see Table 3). The results indicated some significant actor effects
in men. In particular, empathic concern (r = -.27, p < .01) and perspective taking (r = -.34, p <
.01) components of empathy were higher in male individuals with smaller LL discrepancy,
consistent with the hypothesis. However, this was not the case for female participants (see
Table 3). Women whose partners scored higher on perspective taking (r = -.26, p < .01) and
fantasy dimensions of IRI also showed lower LL mismatch. Our hypothesis regarding the links
between empathy and LL matching was then only partially supported.
Contrary to the fourth hypothesis, IRI empathy dimensions proved generally unrelated to
both relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction. The only two exceptions referred to
men’s perspective taking (positive actor effect on sexual satisfaction in men) and personal dis-
tress (women’s distress was related to lower men’s relationship satisfaction). Although some
scholars [e.g. 42] would emphasize that the absence of the association is not disqualifying the
possibly of mediation, we found that in the present analysis there was no reason to test models
in which empathy mediated effects of LL mismatch on satisfaction.
Finally, we compared actor and partner effects in LL mismatch–satisfaction associations
(see Table 4). The bivariate associations suggested both effects. For example, for men, relation-
ship satisfaction was related both to their own and the woman’s mismatch (rs of -.40 and -.36).
To conduct a more rigorous comparison, we ran regression analyses with both men and
women LL mismatch as predictors, by gender and by satisfaction scale. At the first step, these
analyses controlled for length of relationship, which may be a confound of satisfaction. The
second step entered either men or women LL mismatch, and the final step included both mis-
match variables. Such a procedure allowed to examine the added value of each step of the
model and to test for the incremental validity of actor vs. partner effects. For all analyses, both
men and women LL mismatch contributed significantly to the regressions when entered sepa-
rately at Step 2, consistent with the bivariate results. For men, the final regressions at Step 3
showed independent effects of both mismatch variables; male relationship and sexual

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429 June 22, 2022 10 / 18

PLOS ONE Responding to partner’s love language preferences boosts relationship satisfaction

Table 4. Regression models predicting male and female relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction with both partners’ mismatching on LLs.
Model 1. Dependent variable: Men’s relationship satisfaction
B SE β p F R2(ΔR2)
Step 1
Relationship length −.00 .00 −.23 .02 5.54 .05
Step 2a
Relationship length −.00 .00 −.23 .02 10.70 .18
Men’s mismatching on LL −.12 .03 −.36 < .01 (.13)
Step 2b
Relationship length −.00 .00 −.23 .01 12.89 .21
Women’s mismatching on LL −.12 .03 −.40 < .01 (.16)
Step 3
Relationship length −.00 .00 −.22 .00 10.28 .24
Men’s mismatching on LL −.07 .03 −.21 .04 (.06†)
Women’s mismatching on LL −.09 .03 −.29 < .01
Model 2. Dependent variable: Men’s sexual satisfaction
B SE β p F R2(ΔR2)
Step 1
Relationship length .00 .00 −.11 .30 1.11 .01
Step 2a
Relationship length .00 .00 −.10 .29 8.39 .15
Men’s mismatching on LL −.15 .04 −.37 < .01 (.14)
Step 2b
Relationship length −.00 .00 −.10 .29 10.15 .17
Women’s mismatching on LL −.15 .04 −.40 < .01 (.16)
Step 3
Relationship length .00 .00 −.10 .29 8.54 .21
Men’s mismatching on LL −.09 .04 −.22 .04 (.06†)
Women’s mismatching on LL −.11 .04 −.29 < .01
Model 3. Dependent variable: Women’s relationship satisfaction
B SE β p F R2(ΔR2)
Step 1
Relationship length −.01 .00 −.37 < .01 15.12 .13
Step 2a
Relationship length .00 .00 −.36 < .01 13.77 .22
Women’s mismatching on LL −.09 .03 −.30 < .01 (.09)
Step 2b
Relationship length −.01 .00 −.36 < .01 14.36 .23
Men’s mismatching on LL −.11 .03 −.31 < .01 (.02)
Step 3
Relationship length −.00 .00 −.36 < .01 10.92 .25
Women’s mismatching on LL −.06 .03 −.19 .07 (.03†)
Men’s mismatching on LL −.73 .35 −.21 .04
Model 4. Dependent variable: Women’s sexual satisfaction
B SE β p F R2(ΔR2)
Step 1
Relationship length .00 .00 −.16 .11 2.54 .03
Step 2a
Relationship length .00 .00 −.16 .12 3.53 .07
(Continued )

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429 June 22, 2022 11 / 18

PLOS ONE Responding to partner’s love language preferences boosts relationship satisfaction

Table 4. (Continued)

Women’s mismatching on LL −.08 .04 −.21 .04 (.04)

Step 2b
Relationship length .00 .00 −.15 .11 4.51 .09
Men’s mismatching on LL −.10 .04 −.24 .01 (.06)
Step 3
Relationship length .00 .00 −.15 .00 3.33 .10
Women’s mismatching on LL −.04 .04 −.11 .32 (.03†)
Men’s mismatching on LL −.08 .05 −.19 .10

Note. Mismatching on LL = the degree of discrepancy between one’s preferred and partners’ expressed LL; lower values indicate a better match. RS = Relationship
satisfaction, SS = Sexual Satisfaction.
†
Compared with step 2a.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429.t004

satisfaction depends on both actor and partner effects. For women, the final regression for
relationship satisfaction was similar, but the female mismatch predictor fell just short of signif-
icance. Neither predictor was significant at Step 3 for sexual satisfaction. Women’s sexual satis-
faction was more weakly predicted overall than the other outcome measures in these analyses
(10% variance explained vs. 21–25%).
Overall, both actor and partner effects were found, providing further support for both the
first and second hypotheses. We also tested for interactive effects of both partners’ LL match-
ing indicators in all four analyses. No significant interaction effects were found, indicating that
benefits of LL matching are additive.
In addition, we found that relationship length was more consistently associated with lower
relationship satisfaction than with sexual satisfaction. However, no significant correlation
between LL mismatch and relationship length was observed for both men (r = .01, p = .90) and
women (r = .01, p = .91), which suggests that partners do not adjust their expressed LL to their
counterpart’s preferences over time.

Discussion
The present study sought to test empirically Chapman’s [1] hypothesis of LLs and their associ-
ation with relationship and sexual satisfaction, as well as to explore whether matching on LLs
is associated with empathy. This was accomplished by examining partners’ preferences for
receiving and expressing love and assessing their relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction
and four features of empathy.
Our study provides novel evidence in support of Chapman’s [1] notion that speaking one’s
partner love language leads to higher quality relationships and create a positive emotional cli-
mate within the couple. In particular, the findings supported our major hypothesis that indi-
viduals whose partners express love in the way they prefer to receive it experience elevated
relationship and sexual satisfaction. Previous work on sexual satisfaction has focused on dis-
crepancies in desire as an influence on dissatisfaction [e.g. 43]. The present data suggest a
broader role for discrepancy in displays of love that are not overtly sexual. The substantial pos-
itive correlations found between relationship and sexual satisfaction are consistent with previ-
ous research [44].
There were no significant gender differences in relationship and sexual satisfaction, nor in
overall LL mismatch. However, women scored higher than men on four of the five “feeling”
scales, indicating greater levels of need than men, with the largest effect sizes found for the
desires for quality time and words of affirmation. This result contrasts with previous findings

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429 June 22, 2022 12 / 18

PLOS ONE Responding to partner’s love language preferences boosts relationship satisfaction

that men appear to rely more on their partner for social and emotional support than women
do [45, 46]. Possibly, men are more focused on fulfilling the social role of being in a committed
relationship than specific affectionate behaviors, whereas women require more visible signs of
love from their partner. Dykstra and Fokkema [46] suggest that women are more strongly ori-
ented towards expressive and nurturing functions in marriage, implying greater awareness of
whether their male partners is providing affirmations of love. Socialization to be emotionally
independent may also contribute to men downplaying their needs for intimacy and affection
[47]. Thus, the LL mismatch variable may not fully capture gender differences in the experi-
ence of relationships. Despite differences in the means of the “feeling” variables, our main pre-
dictions were supported for both male and female participants, implying that LLs function
similarly in both genders.
In addition, findings supported the second hypothesis, that the actor’s satisfaction would be
negatively associated with the partner’s LL mismatch. The regression analyses confirmed that
both actor and LL mismatch predicted lower satisfaction. In the analyses of male respondents,
both types of mismatches added significantly to the variance explained; findings in women
showed a similar trend although not all effects reached significance, especially for sexual satis-
faction. Partner effects tended to be slightly stronger predictors of relationship satisfaction and
sexual satisfaction than the person’s own degree of matching. Previous findings in the field of
positive psychology [e.g. 17, 18] showing that acts of giving such as prosocial spending may
potentially be more satisfying and lead to greater happiness, when compared to benefiting one-
self. The partner effect is important in that it implies that LL matching is related to the actual
quality of loving actions and communication between partners, and not merely individual per-
ceptions. By contrast, higher emotional intelligence benefits the actor but not the partner,
implying that this factor enhances actor perceptions of relationship quality, but it is not trans-
mitted to the partner so that the benefit is internal to the actor [48].
Our findings were also in line with the previous research conducted with respect to other
forms of behaviors that contribute to the quality of relationships. For instance, in two studies,
relational maintenance strategies strongly predicted commitment, relational satisfaction, sta-
bility and loving others [49, 50]. Among other maintenance strategies, the studies examined
positivity (e.g., upbeat during conversations, avoiding criticism), assurance (e.g., expressions
of love, affirming commitment), social networks (e.g., spending time with common friends)
and sharing tasks (e.g., engaging in household chores), which also resemble some aspects of
the Words of Affirmation, Quality Time or Acts of service LLs. In addition, romantic physical
touch was previously found to be strongly correlated with the relationship and partner satisfac-
tion [51]. Receiving gifts was yet another factor that was previously found to be positively asso-
ciated with the relationship strength, perceived similarity, as well as evaluation of the
relationships’ future potential [e.g. 52, 53].
The regression analyses showed that LL–satisfaction associations remained robust with
length of relationship controlled. Relationship length was negatively correlated with the rela-
tionship satisfaction, as in other studies [e.g. 54, 55]. However, no meaningful association was
observed between the length of relationship and matching on LLs, implying that people do not
necessarily learn LLs of their partners with time. A focus on LLs might thus be of value in rela-
tionship counseling.
To our knowledge, this is the first study that found empirical support for LL hypothesis,
contrasting with Egbert and Polk’s study [31], which found no significant association between
matching on LLs and relationship satisfaction. This discrepancy in the results between the pre-
vious research and our findings may a consequence of the method used to assess LLs. In our
analysis we treated felt and expressed LLs as continuous dimensional qualities rather than cate-
gorizing participants based on a single dominant LL. The method based on collapsing couple

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429 June 22, 2022 13 / 18

PLOS ONE Responding to partner’s love language preferences boosts relationship satisfaction

types (e.g. matched, partially matched, or mismatched) appeared to exaggerate differences in

preferences for the five LLs. Dimensional assessment may be preferable to typologizing LLs. In
the light of the present data, Chapman’s [1] claims that people tend to manifest one, dominant
LL should be revised in favor of assessing multiple preferences for expressing and giving love
using the five LLs.
We further hypothesized that empathy may be a factor that drives matching on LLs, which
in turn leads to the higher relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction among romantic
partners. We aimed to check whether people, who scored higher on empathy scale (perspective
taking and empathetic concern subscales, in particular), would also be more successful in
expressing love in the way their partners prefer to receive it. Nevertheless, we did not find sup-
port for this prediction. Although small significant associations between matching in LLs and
some empathy subscales (namely: perspective taking and fantasy) were observed among men,
analogical effects were not observed in women. It is possible that because men tend to be less
empathetic than women [e.g. 56, 57], the effect that high scores on empathy have on their rela-
tionships is stronger. However, the two significant associations in men did not transfer into
significantly higher satisfaction among female partners.
Thus, benefits of LL matching on relationship and sexual satisfaction do not appear to be
mediated by empathy. From a relationship counseling perspective, the implication is that
training couples to improve matching may be addressed instrumentally as a skill to be
acquired. For instance, such an intervention program could begin with measuring the level of
discrepancies between partners in expressed vs. felt LLs, and providing both partners with
ideas for specific behaviors that they could use to better meet the emotional needs of each
other, as endorsed by Chapman [1]. Expressing love in the form desired may enhance relation-
ship quality, even if the actor lacks cognitive and emotional insight into the partner’s needs.
There are several other strengths and limitations of the current study that should be noted.
Our sample included participants from different age groups, cultural backgrounds and with
various relationship duration, which might serve as an indicator of greater generalizability and
external validity of the findings. On the other hand, the multicultural sample might have been
a confounding variable, which has influenced the findings in an uncontrolled way. Future
research could study bigger and more homogeneous samples. Although in the precent study
we have controlled for relationship length, when testing our hypotheses, in the subsequent
researches more could be done to examine the association between the relationship length and
matching on LLs (e.g., controlling for log or inverse values of the relationship duration).
This study applied an online self-report survey method which results in several significant
limitations as well as response biases related to social desirability [58]. Other potentially prob-
lematic issues associated with the present study design include increased possibility of conde-
scending responses, participants’ self-selection, low response rate, submitting multiple
responses, duration of the questionnaire, biased distribution channels as well as limited intro-
spective ability of the respondent. At the same time, these methods could be associated with
greater self-disclosure due to an online disinhibition effect [59].
The lack of suitable remuneration for the participants may have resulted in the response
biases and nonprobability sampling. Other methods of assessment, as well as strategies aimed
to prevent the response biases (i.e. adding several attention checks) and encouraging subjects
providing reimbursement for participation are needed to eliminate the response and participa-
tion biases.
Another point that has to be addressed is the direction of causality. Even though the present
results confirmed LL–satisfaction associations, future research should seek to establish the
direction of causation between those factors. For instance, there is a possibility that romantic
partners who are more satisfied in their current relationships are also more likely to give and

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429 June 22, 2022 14 / 18

PLOS ONE Responding to partner’s love language preferences boosts relationship satisfaction

appreciate LLs behaviors. Our study also did not assess other factors that might drive matching
on LLs. The observed association could also be multi-directional or be mediated by another
variable. For instance, emotional intelligence may contribute to romantic relationship satisfac-
tion and quality [see 60, 61]. Matching on LLs may also be a byproduct of assortative mating
for personal characteristics like intelligence or personality type [62]. Other individual differ-
ences that were shown to influence relationship quality, such as time perspective or chrono-
type, could be also taken into account as potential mediators or confounders of the effects of
LLs on relationship outcomes [e.g. 55; 63].
In conclusion, this study provides a unique contribution to the empirical literature on
Chapman’s basic assumption of Five Love Languages [1]. Our findings suggest that people
who better match each other’s preferences for LLs are more satisfied with their relationships
and sexual life. Moreover, it appears that satisfying the needs of one’s partner has at least as
strong an impact on the individual’s perceptions of relationship quality as receiving expression
of love in the desired ways does. However, contrary to our hypothesis, small associations
between matching on LLs and degree of empathy were observed only for some empathy sub-
scales among male, but not female participants, and empathy was unrelated to satisfaction.
Future work may explore other possible mediators of the LL matching–relationship satisfac-
tion association.
The present findings, particularly the novel way to assess matching for LLs presented in the
present paper, may be important for the subsequent research in the field of the romantic rela-
tionships. They also provide useful practical implications for marital and family counseling, as
well as for laymen who aim to improve the quality of their relationship. Learning to recognize
and react to one’s partners love needs may be an important skill for building relationship satis-
faction in both partners.

Supporting information
S1 Appendix.
(DOCX)
S1 Data.
(CSV)
S1 File. Variables’ names and abbreviations.
(DOCX)

Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Olha Mostova.
Data curation: Olha Mostova.
Formal analysis: Olha Mostova, Maciej Stolarski.
Investigation: Olha Mostova.
Methodology: Olha Mostova, Maciej Stolarski.
Project administration: Maciej Stolarski.
Supervision: Maciej Stolarski.
Writing – original draft: Olha Mostova.
Writing – review & editing: Olha Mostova, Maciej Stolarski, Gerald Matthews.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429 June 22, 2022 15 / 18

PLOS ONE Responding to partner’s love language preferences boosts relationship satisfaction

References
1. Chapman G. The five love languages: How to express heartfelt commitment to your mate. Chicago:
Northfield Publishing; 1992.
2. Chapman G, Southern R. The 5 Love Languages for Men. Chicago: Northfield Publishing; 2015.
3. Floyd K. Communicating affection: Interpersonal behavior and social context. New York: Cambridge
University Press. 2006.
4. Floyd K, Hesse C, Haynes M. Human Affection Exchange: XV. Metabolic and Cardiovascular Corre-
lates of Trait Expressed Affection. Commun Q. 2007; 55(1):79–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01463370600998715
5. Baumeister R, Leary M. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental
human motivation. Psychol Bull. 1995; 117(3):497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
PMID: 7777651
6. Downs V, Javidi M. Linking communication motives to loneliness in the lives of older adults: An empirical
test of interpersonal needs and gratifications. J Appl Commun Res. 1990; 18(1):32–48. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00909889009360313
7. Floyd K, Morman M. Human Affection Exchange: II. Affectionate Communication in Father-Son Rela-
tionships. J Soc Psychol. 2003; 143(5):599–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540309598466 PMID:
14609055
8. Kochhar R, Sharma D. Role of Love in Relationship Satisfaction. Int J Indian Psychol. 3. 2015; 81–107.
https://doi.org/10.25215/0301.102
9. Burleson B, Kunkel A, Birch J. Thoughts about talk in romantic relationships: Similarity makes for attrac-
tion (and happiness, too). Commun Q. 1994; 42(3):259–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379409
369933
10. Gonzaga G, Campos B, Bradbury T. Similarity, convergence, and relationship satisfaction in dating and
married couples. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007; 93(1):34–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.34
PMID: 17605587
11. Anderson C, Keltner D, John O. Emotional convergence between people over time. J Pers Soc Psychol.
2003; 84(5):1054–1068. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1054 PMID: 12757148
12. Ohadi J, Brown B, Trub L, Rosenthal L. I just text to say I love you: Partner similarity in texting and
relationship satisfaction. Comput Hum Behav. 2017; 78:126–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.
2017.08.048
13. Byers E. Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal study of individuals in long-
term relationships. J Sex Res. 2005; 42(2):113–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490509552264
PMID: 16123841
14. Litzinger S, Gordon K. Exploring Relationships Among Communication, Sexual Satisfaction, and Marital
Satisfaction. J Sex Marital Ther. 2005; 31(5):409–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926230591006719
PMID: 16169824
15. Farley FH, Davis SA. Personality and sexual satisfaction in marriage. J Sex Marital Ther. 1980; 6: 56–
62. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926238008404246 PMID: 7381949
16. de Jong D, Reis H. Sexual Kindred Spirits: Actual and Overperceived Similarity, Complementarity, and
Partner Accuracy in Heterosexual Couples. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2014; 40(10):1316–1329. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0146167214542801 PMID: 25015336
17. Dunn E., Aknin L. and Norton M., 2008. Spending Money on Others Promotes Happiness. Science.
2008; 319(5870):1687–1688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1150952 PMID: 18356530
18. Aknin L, Barrington-Leigh C, Dunn E, Helliwell J, Burns J, Biswas-Diener R et al. Prosocial spending
and well-being: Cross-cultural evidence for a psychological universal. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2013; 104
(4):635–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031578 PMID: 23421360
19. Davis M. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. J
Pers So Psychol. 1983; 44(1):113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
20. Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S. The Empathy Quotient: An Investigation of Adults with Asperger Syn-
drome or High Functioning Autism, and Normal Sex Differences. J Autism Dev Disord. 2004; 34
(2):163–175. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:jadd.0000022607.19833.00 PMID: 15162935
21. Davis M. A Multidimensional Approach to Individual Differences in Empathy. JSAS Catalog Sel Doc
Psychol. 1980; 10:85.
22. Cohen S, Schulz M, Weiss E, Waldinger R. Eye of the beholder: The individual and dyadic contributions
of empathic accuracy and perceived empathic effort to relationship satisfaction. J Fam Psychol. 2012;
26(2):236–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027488 PMID: 22369462

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429 June 22, 2022 16 / 18

PLOS ONE Responding to partner’s love language preferences boosts relationship satisfaction

23. Sened H, Lavidor M, Lazarus G, Bar-Kalifa E, Rafaeli E, Ickes W. Empathic accuracy and relationship
satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. J Fam Psychol. 2017; 31(6):742–752. https://doi.org/10.1037/
fam0000320 PMID: 28394141
24. Ickes W, Hodges SD. Empathic accuracy in close relationships. In: Simpson J, Campbell L, editors. The
Oxford Handbook of Close Relationships. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. pp. 348–373.
25. Verhofstadt L, Buysse A, Ickes W, Davis M, Devoldre I. Support provision in marriage: The role of emo-
tional similarity and empathic accuracy. Emotion. 2008; 8(6):792–802. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0013976 PMID: 19102590
26. Verhofstadt L, Devoldre I, Buysse A, Stevens M, Hinnekens C, Ickes W et al. The Role of Cognitive and
Affective Empathy in Spouses’ Support Interactions: An Observational Study. PLOS ONE. 2016; 11(2):
e0149944. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149944 PMID: 26910769
27. Cramer D, Jowett S. Perceived empathy, accurate empathy and relationship satisfaction in heterosex-
ual couples. J Soc Pers Relat 2010; 27(3):327–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509348384
28. Bunt S, Hazelwood ZJ. Walking the walk, talking the talk: Love languages, self-regulation, and relation-
ship satisfaction. Pers Relationship. 2017; 24:280–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12182
29. Egbert N, Polk D. Speaking the language of relational maintenance: A validity test of Chapman’s (1992)
five love languages. Commun Res Rep. 2006; 23 (1):19–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/17464090500
535822
30. Stafford L, Dainton M, Haas S. Measuring routine and strategic relational maintenance: Scale revision,
sex versus gender roles, and the prediction of relational characteristics. Commun Monogr. 2000; 67
(3):306–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750009376512
31. Egbert N, Polk D. Speaking the language of love: On Chapman’s (1992) claims stand up to empirical
testing. Open Commun J. 2013; 7(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874916X20130423001
32. Leaver E, Green D. Psychophysiology and The Five Love Languages. In: Eastern Psychological Asso-
ciation Conference. Philadelphia; 2015, March.
33. Goff BG, Goddard HW, Pointer L, Jackson GB. Measures of expressions of love. Psychol Rep. 2007;
101(2):357–360. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.101.2.357-360 PMID: 18175473
34. Veale SL. How do I love thee? An investigation of Chapman’s Five Love Languages (Doctoral disserta-
tion). Capella University, Minneapolis; 2006. Available from: http://bigfatresearchpaper.blogspot.com/
2008/02/new-source-how-do-i-love-thee.html.
35. Cramer D, Jowett S. Perceived empathy, accurate empathy and relationship satisfaction in heterosex-
ual couples. J Soc Pers Relat. 2010; 27(3):327–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509348384
36. Levesque C, Lafontaine M, Caron A, Flesch J, Bjornson S. Dyadic Empathy, Dyadic Coping, and Rela-
tionship Satisfaction: A Dyadic Model. Eur J Psychol. 2014; 10(1):118–134. https://doi.org/10.5964/
ejop.v10i1.697
37. Péloquin K, Lafontaine MF. Measuring empathy in couples: Validity and reliability of the interpersonal
reactivity index for couples. J Pers Assess. 2010; 92(2):146–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/002238
90903510399 PMID: 20155564
38. Lorber MF, Erlanger ACE, Heyman RE, O’Leary KD. The honeymoon effect: Does it exist and can it be
predicted? Prev Sci. 2015; 16(4):550–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-014-0480-4 PMID:
24643282
39. Hudson W, Harrison D, Crosscup P. A short-form scale to measure sexual discord in dyadic relation-
ships. Journal Sex Res. 1981; 17(2):157–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498109551110
40. Hendrick S. A Generic Measure of Relationship Satisfaction. J Marriage Fam. 1988; 50(1):93. https://
doi.org/10.2307/352430
41. Rueckert L, Naybar N. Gender differences in empathy: The role of the right hemisphere. Brain Cogn.
2008; 67(2):162–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2008.01.002 PMID: 18295950
42. Hayes A. Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium. Commun
Monogr. 2009; 76(4):408–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360
43. Vowels MJ, Mark KP, Vowels LM, Wood ND. Using spectral and cross-spectral analysis to identify pat-
terns and synchrony in couples’ sexual desire. PloS One. 2018; 13(10):e0205330. https://doi.org/10.
1371/journal.pone.0205330 PMID: 30332440
44. McNulty J, Wenner C, Fisher T. Longitudinal Associations Among Relationship Satisfaction, Sexual
Satisfaction, and Frequency of Sex in Early Marriage. Arch Sex Behav. 2016; 45(1):85–97. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10508-014-0444-6 PMID: 25518817
45. Antonucci TC. A life-span view of women’s social relations. In: Turner BF, Troll L, editors. Women grow-
ing older: Psychological perspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1994. pp. 239–269.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429 June 22, 2022 17 / 18

PLOS ONE Responding to partner’s love language preferences boosts relationship satisfaction

46. Dykstra P, Fokkema T. Social and Emotional Loneliness Among Divorced and Married Men and
Women: Comparing the Deficit and Cognitive Perspectives. Basic Appl Soc Psychol. 2007; 29(1):1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701330843
47. de Jong Gierveld J, van Tilburg T, Dykstra PA. Loneliness and social isolation. In: Vangelisti A, Perlman
D, editors. The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships. Cambriedge: Cambridge University
Press; 2005. pp.485–500.
48. Zeidner M, Kloda I, Matthews G. Does dyadic coping mediate the relationship between emotional intelli-
gence (EI) and marital quality? J Fam Psychol. 2013; 27(5):795–805. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034009
PMID: 24098964
49. Canary D, Stafford L, Semic B. A Panel Study of the Associations Between Maintenance Strategies and
Relational Characteristics. J Marriage Fam. 2002; 64(2):395–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.
2002.00395.x
50. Ogolsky B, Bowers J. A meta-analytic review of relationship maintenance and its correlates. J Soc Per-
son Relat. 2012; 30(3):343–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512463338
51. Gulledge A, Gulledge M, Stahmannn R. Romantic Physical Affection Types and Relationship Satisfac-
tion. Am J Fam Ther. 2003; 31(4):233–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180390201936
52. Chan C, Mogilner C. Experiential Gifts Foster Stronger Social Relationships than Material Gifts. J Con-
sum Res. 2017; 43(6):913–931. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw067
53. Dunn E, Huntsinger J, Lun J, Sinclair S. The Gift of Similarity: How Good and Bad Gifts Influence Rela-
tionships. Soc Cogn. 2008; 26(4):469–481. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.4.469
54. Wang X, Xie X, Wang Y, Wang P, Lei L. Partner phubbing and depression among married Chinese
adults: The roles of relationship satisfaction and relationship length. Pers Indiv Differ. 2017; 110:12–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.014
55. Stolarski M, Wojtkowska K, Kwiecińska M. Time for love: Partners’ time perspectives predict relation-
ship satisfaction in romantic heterosexual couples. Time Soc. 2016; 25(3):552–574. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0961463X15596703
56. Hampson E, van Anders SM, Mullin LI. A female advantage in the recognition of emotional facial
expressions: Test of an evolutionary hypothesis. Evol Hum Behav. 2006; 27(6):401–16. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.05.002
57. Mestre MV, Samper P, Frı́as MD, Tur AM. Are women more empathetic than men? A longitudinal study
in adolescence. The Span J Psychol. 2009; 12(1):76–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1138741600001499
PMID: 19476221
58. Van de Mortel TF. Faking it: Social desirability response bias in self-report research. Aust J Adv Nurs.
2008; 25:40–48. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.210155003844269
59. Suler J. The Online Disinhibition Effect. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2004; 7(3):321–326. https://doi.org/10.
1089/1094931041291295 PMID: 15257832
60. Stolarski M, Postek S, Śmieja M. Emotional intelligence and sexual satisfaction among couples. Studia
Psychologiczne [Psychological Studies]. 2011; 5(49), 65–76.
61. Zeidner M, Kaluda I. Romantic love: What’s emotional intelligence (EI) got to do with it? Pers Indiv Dif-
fer. 2008; 44(8):1684–1695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.018
62. Luo S, Klohnen EC. Assortative Mating and Marital Quality in Newlyweds: A Couple-Centered
Approach. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005; 88(2), 304–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.304
PMID: 15841861
63. Jocz P, Stolarski M, Jankowski KS. Similarity in chronotype and preferred time for sex and its role in
relationship quality and sexual satisfaction. Front Psychol. 2018; 9:443. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.
2018.00443 PMID: 29670559

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269429 June 22, 2022 18 / 18