You may be familiar with the concept of love languages, a theory introduced 30 years ago by Baptist pastor Gary Chapman. According to this theory, people express and receive love in different ways, and understanding your partner’s love language—whether it’s words of affirmation, receiving gifts, acts of service, quality time, or physical touch—is key to a happy relationship.
Despite the popularity of Chapman’s book, The 5 Love Languages, there is little empirical evidence supporting the theory. In a paper published in January 2024 in Current Directions in Psychological Science, researchers reviewed the literature and concluded that the core assumptions about love languages lack empirical support.
But what if there’s another way to describe what drives our behavior—one grounded in empirical evidence? Could our brains have “love languages” that help us understand what motivates us? Decades of neuroscience research have uncovered social drivers of behavior that can provide valuable insights into understanding ourselves and others.
Research confirms that humans are highly social beings, and the brain is often described as a social organ. As early as 1978, researchers noted similarities between the experiences of social pain (such as ostracism, interpersonal rejection, or hurt feelings) and physical pain.
Over the following decades, studies have explored how these two types of pain might be connected, focusing on overlapping neural activation patterns in the brain (Eisenberger, 2015; Eisenberger & Lieberman, 2008). This body of research has identified key drivers of behavior, which can be broadly categorized into five domains of social experience.
The C.A.R.E.S. Model
The C.A.R.E.S. model outlines five areas in our interactions with others that can trigger threat or reward responses. By understanding these fundamental social drivers, we can better identify our triggers and understand the triggers that influence others’ behavior. This knowledge is valuable in all interactions, whether in personal relationships or professional settings.
The five domains that make up the C.A.R.E.S. model are Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, Equity, and Significance. These domains are key areas where we can experience threat or reward. Being aware of these domains helps us manage ourselves and others more effectively.
These five domains activate the brain’s ‘primary reward’ or ‘primary threat’ circuitry. Simply put, a perceived threat to one’s significance activates similar brain networks to those triggered by a threat to one’s life. Conversely, a perceived increase in equity or fairness activates the same reward circuitry as receiving a large monetary reward.
While everyone can experience threats or rewards related to each of these social domains, we tend to be more sensitive to the driver that is most important to us. Let’s explore each domain more closely.
- Certainty: Do I have clarity now and into the future?
This domain relates to our drive to predict the future to meet our need for certainty. People with high needs for certainty tend to be cautious decision-makers.
They prefer to take their time to weigh options and dislike being rushed. They are often perfectionists, with a low appetite for risk or change, and can be highly detail-oriented. They experience threats when situations or expectations are unclear.
Those who value certainty are dependable and loyal, but they may struggle with delegation, fearing that others won’t meet their standards.
- Autonomy: Do I have choice and influence?
This domain reflects our drive for choice and control to satisfy our need for autonomy. Individuals with high autonomy needs are often confident, self-motivated, and resistant to micromanagement.
They are typically innovators, thriving on the freedom to approach tasks their own way. They prefer understanding the big picture and dislike excessive advice or detail. While they enjoy working independently, they may not always be seen as team players.
- Relatedness: Do I belong?
This domain is about our drive to feel connected to others, fulfilling our need for relatedness. People for whom relatedness is a high driver are often the social glue in a family or team.
They excel at building strong connections and relationships, sometimes prioritizing others’ needs over their own. While they are loyal and protective, they may avoid conflict, which can sometimes distract them from their own goals.
- Equity: Am I being treated fairly?
This domain involves our drive for fairness and equity. Those with high equity needs are champions for justice and equality, often advocating for fair principles and processes.
They are empathetic and nurturing, standing up for others when they perceive injustice. Highly collaborative, they seek consensus in decision-making, but they may hold grudges or sacrifice personal interests in the face of perceived unfairness.
- Significance: Do I matter to others?
This domain relates to our drive to maintain a positive self-image. People with high needs for significance are often ambitious and energetic, driven by the pursuit of recognition and achievement.
They thrive on praise and acknowledgment but can become defensive when stressed or challenged. Competitive by nature, they may hesitate to express unpopular opinions, fearing rejection.
We often communicate based on our dominant drivers, which can unintentionally create threats for others. For example, my partner and I both enjoy cooking, but his primary drivers are significance and certainty, while mine are autonomy and equity—not exactly a perfect match. When he offered unsolicited advice while I was cooking, it triggered a threat response in me. After experiencing this too many times, we agreed that he would ask, “May I make a suggestion?”—to which I could respond yes or no. Interestingly, this simple change met my need for autonomy.
In the workplace, I’ve become more mindful of the fact that certainty is my lowest driver, while for 40% of my team, it’s the highest. I’ve learned to provide more information than I might personally need and to be mindful of punctuality and let team members know if I am running late.
I now give my team time to process information and avoid rushing decision-making. In every interaction—whether with team members, family, or stakeholders—I consciously consider how to meet their needs for certainty, autonomy, relatedness, equity, and significance.
This approach has been a game changer, enabling me to communicate more effectively and reduce the chances of triggering a threat response in others.
While the concept of love languages has resonated with many, its lack of empirical support and narrow focus make it less effective in capturing the complexities of human behavior. The C.A.R.E.S. model, however, is rooted in decades of neuroscience research, offering a robust and scientifically-backed framework for understanding what truly drives us.
Unlike love languages, which primarily address romantic relationships, the C.A.R.E.S. model applies to all social interactions, from personal to professional.
Notably, the C.A.R.E.S. model has been described by participants in our Advanced Diploma of Neuroscience of Leadership as pivotal in enhancing their leadership skills and deepening their engagement with others.
By recognizing and addressing the core social drivers—Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, Equity, and Significance—we can navigate interactions more effectively, foster deeper connections, and reduce misunderstandings.
In this way, the C.A.R.E.S. model not only provides more practical insights but also empowers us to create more meaningful and harmonious relationships across all areas of life.
What empirical evidence challenges the effectiveness of Gary Chapman's love languages theory?
