Effects of Couple’s Empathy on Relationship Satisfaction ...
Transcript of Effects of Couple’s Empathy on Relationship Satisfaction ...
Effects of Couple’s Empathy on Relationship Satisfaction: Adult Romantic Attachment as a Mediator
Master’s Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Brandeis University
Department of Psychology Ellen Wright, Advisor
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
in Psychology
by
Lijun Li
May 2017
Copyright by
Lijun Li
© 2017
iii
ABSTRACT
Effects of Couple’s Empathy on Relationship Satisfaction: Adult Romantic Attachment as a Mediator
A thesis presented to the Department of Psychology
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Brandeis University
Waltham, Massachusetts
By Lijun Li
Empathy indicates the ability of individuals to imitate, share, and understand other person’s
emotion and opinions, and it plays an important role in social interaction. This study examined
the gender differences in empathy, and the effects of couples’ dyadic empathy, adult romantic
attachment and gender role on relationship satisfaction. Participants came in with their partners
(N=66, 33 couples) completed a stressful cognitive task separately while rating each other’s
levels of anxiety, and filled out self-report questionnaires. Empathy was indicated by the
mismatch between respondents’ report of their own anxiety and their partner’s view of that
anxious feeling in a stressful situation behaviorally, supplementing the self-report questionnaire.
For behavioral empathy, the relation between individual’s self-report feelings and partner’s rated
scores was positive for females only. Gender differences were also found in self-reported
empathy, with males reporting higher levels of perspective-taking than females. An actor-partner
interdependent model (APIM) showed that both the individual’s own and his/her partner’s
iv
empathic concern significantly predicted romantic relationship satisfaction, but gender did NOT
moderate that relation. Moderated APIM found that masculine gender role moderated the actor
effect of empathic concern on relationship satisfaction. The relation between empathic concern
and relationship satisfaction was partially mediated by attachment avoidance and partner’s
attachment anxiety, and the mediation effects of attachment avoidance was moderated by
masculine gender role. This study adds to existent research on gender differences in empathy
using multiple measurements, and adopting a dyadic approach to explore the relation between
empathy and relationship satisfaction. Implications and directions for future research are
discussed.
1
Introduction
Researchers have found gender differences in empathy, with women tending to show
greater emotional responsivity towards others’ emotions (Bryant, 1982; Martin & Hoffman,
1977). However, many of these studies relied on self-report measures. Some studies found no
significant gender differences when not relying on self-report (Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983).
Further, many of the studies in this area focus on gender differences in individuals; however, it is
also important to explore the gender differences within intimate partnerships, which may affect
relationship satisfaction. Attachment also has been shown to predict relationship satisfaction
(Ng, Loy, MohdZain, & Cheong, 2013), and attachment theory can provide a framework to
explain differences in individual’s reactions to distress and needs of others (Peloquin,
Lafontaine, & Brassard, 2011), which is similar to the nature of empathy. These associations
indicate that attachment might mediate the relation between empathy and relationship
satisfaction. The purpose of this study was to examine predictors of relationship satisfaction by
assessing the effects of adult romantic attachment (attachment-related avoidance and attachment-
related anxiety), empathy, depressive levels, and gender role. We expected that empathy would
differ by gender behaviorally and based on self-reports. Empathy was hypothesized to be related
to relationship satisfaction on a dyadic level; gender, gender role and depression were assumed
to moderate the effect of empathy on relationship satisfaction on a dyadic level; attachment was
expected to mediate the dyadic association between empathy and relationship satisfaction.
Gender, Empathy, and Relationship Satisfaction
2
The construct of empathy indicates an individual’s ability to emotionally and cognitively
understand the experiences of another person (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2003; Cohen &
Strayer, 1996), and it consists of four components: empathic concern, personal distress,
perspective taking, and fantasy (Davis, 1980, 1983). Researchers have found gender differences
in empathy, with women tending to show greater emotional responsivity towards others’
emotions (Bryant, 1982; Martin & Hoffman, 1977). However, a number of researchers have not
found this advantage for females. Eisenberg and Lennon (1983) found that gender differences in
empathy depend on how empathy is measured. Females report more empathy than males when
using self-report methods; but when using non-self-rating assessments, Eisenberg and Lennon
(1983) found no significant gender differences, which suggests females are more likely to realize
and report their empathy when compared to males. In a study conducted by Christov-Moore et
al. (2014), gender differences in empathy were found to depend on which empathic component
was examined. Females’ empathic scores were higher than males’ in affective empathy, and
males showed more activated brain areas for the control of cognitive empathy. Most of the
studies that used non-self-rating methods adopted physiological measurement, and few of them
used behavioral assessment to measure empathy. Collins and her colleagues (2014) used a novel
behavioral way to measure empathy. In their study, participants were asked to observe their
partners doing a stressful task, and then they rated how they felt when observing their partners
and then wrote down a support note to their partners. Through this way, they measured the
feelings of each person and each person’s responses to partner’s experiences; however, it is
unclear whether a person actually understood his/her partner’s feelings or how accurately he/she
understood those feelings.
3
One attempt to examine gender differences in empathy involves examining gender role
orientation. Karniol, Gabay, Ochion and Harari (1998) focused on this potential predictor in
adolescents, and they found the effect of gender on empathy was mediated by gender role,
specifically the femininity levels. Some studies (Ivtzan, Redman & Gardner, 2012; Mitrofan &
Dumitrache, 2012) also found that empathy was related to femininity regardless of gender.
Lengua and Stormshak (2000) found the association between femininity and empathy was
stronger for females than for males; masculinity was negatively related to empathy for males, but
slightly positively related to empathy for females. The impact of femininity on empathy could be
predicted given the connection with how it is measured typically as reflecting communality
(Helgeson, 1994), so higher levels of communality would assume more focus on relationships.
Emotion understanding and cognitive perspective taking are also essential in social
interaction, so empathy was considered to play an important role in interpersonal relationships
(Wicker et al., 2003), which includes romantic relationship. One indicator used to estimate the
relationship strength between intimate partners is relationship satisfaction. It reflects the degree
to which degree partners in intimate relationships rate their approval of their relationship
satisfaction. Several studies have found that cognitive and affective empathy were beneficial in
enhancing and maintaining satisfaction in romantic relationships (Cramer & Jowett, 2010; Davis
& Oathout, 1987).
Since gender differences were shown in some studies only when using self-report
measurement, it is important to explore the gender differences using multiple measurements.
According to the findings about the relation between gender role and empathy, it will be
interesting to see if gender differences in empathy are driven by gender role or affected by
gender role. Empathy also plays an important role in romantic relationships, however, most
4
studies in this area focused on individuals from a general population. It is also very important to
explore the relation between empathy and relationship satisfaction in intimate couples on a
dyadic level, and if this dyadic relationship differs by gender or gender role.
Empathy, Depression, and Relationship Satisfaction
One of the four subcomponents of empathy is personal distress. Eisenberg and Fabes
(1992) suggested that empathic over-arousal could be induced by viewing another’s negative
emotion promotes personal distress, which is self-focused, and thus a desire to alleviate
themselves instead of others. Some studies suggest that depression is associated with attention
focused on the self, especially the ruminative self-focus (Ingram, 1990; Nolen-Hoeksema et al.,
1994; Nolen-Hoeksema, 2000). Self-focused attention plays a role in both empathy and
depression; thus, it is possible that depression is associated with empathy. Thoma et al. (2011)
found depressed patients showed higher self-reported empathy scores, which was driven by
increased personal distress scores. O’Connor, Berry, Weiss and Gilbert (2002) also found
depressed patients reported higher empathic distress.
The relation between depressive symptoms and relationship satisfaction has been widely
studied. The Relationship Discord Model of Depression maintains that relationship discord plays
an important role in the development of depressive symptoms. Studies have found that
relationship satisfaction was a strong predictor of depression, and this result was cross-culturally
consistent (Hollist, Miller, Falceto, & Fernandes, 2007; Miller et al. 2013). Senchak and
Leonard’s (1993) study also found depression is associated with lower relationship satisfaction.
Fincham, Beach, Harold and Osborne (1997) conducted a longitudinal study to examine the
bidirectional causal relation between relationship satisfaction and depressive symptoms. Results
showed that for men, depression was negatively associated with later satisfaction, whereas for
5
women, poorer relationship satisfaction predicted later depression. They also found wives’
depression influenced husbands’ concurrent satisfaction. These studies suggest that depression is
associated with both empathy and relationship satisfaction; we suggest it might play a
moderating role in the relation between empathy and relationship satisfaction, especially on a
dyadic level.
Empathy, Attachment and Relationship Satisfaction
Previous studies show that spousal attachment can predict relationship satisfaction (Ng,
Loy, MohdZain, & Cheong, 2013; Jones, Welton, Oliver, & Thorburn, 2011). In the context of
romantic relationships, the way adults think, feel, and interact with their partners has been
demonstrated to vary with their attachment styles (Meyers & Landsberger, 2002). Attachment in
romantic relationship contains two dimensions: attachment-related anxiety and attachment-
related avoidance (Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). People could be
classified into four attachment styles using the two dimensions: secure, preoccupied, fearful, and
dismissive.
Association between relationship satisfaction and attachment has been well documented,
and attachment affects relationship satisfaction both in direct and indirect ways. Previous studies
showed that attachment-related anxiety and attachment-related avoidance are negatively
associated with relationship satisfaction (Carnelley, Pietromonaco, & Jaffe, 1996; Cobb, Davila,
& Bradbury, 2001; Davila & Bradbury, 2001; Rholes, Simpson, & Friedman, 2006). Other
studies focused on the indirect effects found that psychological distress, negative affectivity,
communication patterns, emotional control, and coping strategies can mediate the relation
between attachment and relationship satisfaction (Davila, Bradbury, & Fincham, 1998; Feeney,
1994; Feeney, 1999; Lussier, Sabourin, & Turgeon, 1997, Meyers & Landsberger, 2002).
6
Attachment theory can provide a framework to explain individuals’ reactions to others’
needs and distress (Peloquin, Lafontaine, & Brassard, 2011). Joireman, Needham and Cummings
(2002) found that greater trust and comfort with closeness were related to greater perspective
taking and empathic concern, whereas greater anxiety was associated with higher personal
distress. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that attachment may be a mediator between empathy
and relationship satisfaction. Myung-Sun’s study (2014) examined effects of empathy on
relationship satisfaction through attachment, and the results confirmed the assumption. However,
Myung-Sun’s study treated the couple as two individuals instead of an interdependent dyad, it is
unclear how an individual’s own empathy and his/her partner’s empathy may affect dyadic
relationship satisfaction.
The present study used a dyadic approach to analyze couples’ empathy and its effect on
relationship satisfaction. We designed behavioral tasks based on Collins’ study (2014) to
measure behavioral empathy, and gender differences were expected to be found in empathy on
the basis of both self-report and behaviorally. We hypothesized that empathy towards intimate
partners would be positively related to relationship satisfaction on a dyadic level, and depressive
level and gender role of the partner were expected to moderate the relation between empathy and
relationship satisfaction on a dyadic level. Specifically, it was expected that higher levels of
depression would weaken the positive relation between empathy and relationship satisfaction;
and feminine gender role would strengthen the positive relation between empathy and
relationship satisfaction. Adult romantic attachment was expected to mediate the dyadic
association between empathy and relationship satisfaction on a dyadic level.
7
Methods
Participants
Thirty-three couples from a northeastern private liberal arts university were recruited as
participants. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Participants’ age ranged from
18 to 32 years old (Mage = 20.59, SD = 3.12). The length of their relationship lasted from at least
6 months to 122 months (Mlength = 23.22 months, SD = 30.52). Regarding participants’ ethnicity,
42.4% were White, 36.4% were Asian, 7.6% were Hispanic, 3% were Black, and 10.6% chose
other (e.g., Middle East, Caribbean-Asian).
Measures
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. The STAI consists of two portions and is used to
measure trait anxiety and state anxiety (Spielberger et al., 1983). The state portion of the measure
consisted of 8 items and assessed participants’ current level of anxiety upon entering the study.
This measure was also used to assess anxiety of both members of the couple after they have
completed the behavioral task and what they believed their partners were experiencing during the
behavioral tasks. The trait portion of the measure assessed how anxious participants generally
were. It contained 20 items, and score ranged from 20 to 80. Internal consistency coefficients for
the trait portion in this study was .91.
Interpersonal Reactivity Index for Couples. The Interpersonal Reactivity Index for
Couples (IRIC) is an adapted version of Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), and it is used to
assess cognitive and emotional empathic tendencies toward partner within the context of intimate
relationships (Peloquin & Lafontaine, 2010). The IRIC consists of two subscales – Perspective
8
Taking and Empathic Concern, and it contains 14 items. The internal consistencies for IRIC was
.80 in the current study.
Personal Distress in IRI. The Personal Distress subscale of the IRI were used to
measure conscious understanding each has about their anxiety and discomfort toward others’
negative experiences. This subscale was comprised of 7 items, and the alpha coefficient for this
subscale is .78.
Dyadic Adjustment Scale. The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) is a widely used self-
report instrument for assessing relationship satisfaction. Spanier (1976) developed this
instrument into a 32 items scale. The score ranges from 0 to 151, and higher score means the
dyadic adjustment is more positive. The internal consistency reliability in the current study
is .80.
Experiences in Close Relationship-Revised. The Experiences in Close Relationship-
Revised (ECR-R) is a 36-item measure of adult attachment style (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan,
2000). It measures individuals on two subscales of attachment: Avoidance and Anxiety. In
general, Avoidant individuals find discomfort with intimacy and seek independence, whereas
Anxious individuals tend to fear rejection and abandonment. The combined internal consistency
reliability for ECR-R in the current study is .89.
Bem Sex-Role Inventory. The Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) was developed by Bem
(1974). It is used to measure gender role perceptions. The BSRI is based on gender stereotypes,
so what it's measuring is how well individual fits into traditional sex role. In the current study the
internal consistency reliability for this scale was .81.
Beck Depression Inventory. The Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, Ward, Mendelson,
Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961) is one of the widely used self-report checklists for measuring the
9
severity of depression. It consisted of twenty-one items. The score ranged from 0-63, and higher
score indicates more severe depression. In the current study the internal consistency reliability
for this scale was .83.
Behavioral Tasks
Mental arithmetic stress task (MAST). One person in the couple counted backward
from 457 by 13 for approximately one minute (the time taken was recorded to control for
unequal time in the behavioral tasks). The experimenter interrupted when the participant made
mistakes, and feedback would be provided after each trial. The other person was asked to
observe his/her partner carefully.
Letter Number Task (LNT). The experimenter read a series of numbers and letters. The
person assigned for this task was then asked to pick out the letters and arrange them in the
alphabetical order, and rearrange the numbers in numerical order from memory. Again, this task
took approximately 1 minute (with the time taken for the task recorded), and feedback was given
at the end of each trial. The other person was asked to observe his/her partner.
After each task, both the task responder and the observer rated the anxious feelings of the
individual completing the task on the state portion of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory;
(Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg & Jacobs, 1983). The degree to which the observer’s rated
scores match their partner’s own rated scores was used as one indicator of emotional
understanding, an important aspect of empathy. The observer then wrote a brief note could be
shared with his/her partner, and the note was used to analyze the supportive behavior to his/her
partner’s frustration and stress using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) to code the
negative and positive words as a gauge of the support offered. The LIWC is a computer software
10
program that calculates the degree to which people use different categories of words
(http://www.liwc.net/).
For half of the couples, the male participants were assigned to do the MAST with female
participants observing, and the female were assigned to do the LNT with male participants
observing. The sequence of the two tasks was fixed. For the other half of the couples, the male
participants were assigned to do the LNT with female participants observing and the female
participants were assigned to do the MAST with male participants observing.
Procedures
Participant came together with his/her partner. After obtaining the informed consent, both
members completed the State subscale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) by measuring
their baseline anxious feelings. Then one member of the couple completed one of the behavioral
tasks, and the other member observed his/her partner’s performance. After completing the task,
the task responder was asked to assess his or her own state anxiety using the State subscale of the
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory again. In addition, the observer rated his/her view of the
responder’s anxious feelings, and wrote a brief supportive note could be shared with his/her
partner. Next, the observer completed the other behavioral task, and his/her partner observed.
The procedures were repeated.
Following the behavioral tasks, the participants were given instructions to complete the
packet of questionnaires. The participants were reminded that they should read all questions
carefully, and complete each question to the best of their ability. After filling out questionnaires,
the study was completed. The participants were debriefed, and then thanked for their time.
Analytic Plan
11
The descriptive statistics were generated (e.g., mean, standard deviation) for the related
variables. The effectiveness of the stressful tasks was explored by comparing the self-rated
anxious feelings before and after the task using a paired-samples t-test.
We counted the number of cognitive and affective words each participant wrote in their
notes using the LIWC program. Each person’s notes were entered and saved as an independent
text file, and these files were imported into LIWC to count the cognitive words and affective
words (overall affective words, as well as anxious words, angry words, and sad words).
Correlations among the different words, between the words use and empathy, and between the
words use and relationship satisfaction were explored.
To analyze data on a dyadic level, we restructured the data using the “double-entry
method” (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). Each dyad was assigned an ID number, and this dyad
ID number was the same for both partners in each dyad. Since the two persons in each dyad have
opposite gender, we identified each individual based on their gender within the dyad. Each
person’s score was entered twice, once as the “own scores” for themselves and again as
“partner’s scores” for his/her partner. We assumed that female’s scores and male’s scores would
have different means and variances, addressing the issue of distinguishability.
We then explored gender differences in empathy. For behavioral empathy, the gender
difference was tested by comparing the relation between individuals’ own rated anxiety and
partners’ estimated anxiety for females to that relation for males. Regarding the self-report
empathy, gender differences was explored using independent-samples t-test. We also explored
how the mismatch between respondents’ report of their own anxiety and the partner’s view of
that anxiety was related to the self-report empathy.
12
The relation between empathy and relationship satisfaction was analyzed using an actor-
partner interdependent model, in which the actor effect indicates the effect of a person’s own
independent variable on his/her own dependent variable, and the partner effect indicates the
effect of a person’s partner’s independent variable on his/her own dependent variable. We
explored how individual’s self-report empathy, as well as his/her partner’s self-report empathy
may affect relationship satisfaction (see Figure 1). Gender, gender role, and depression were then
included in the moderated actor-partner interdependent models to explore if they could moderate
the relation between empathy and relationship satisfaction on a dyadic level. Finally, we
explored if the relation between empathy and relationship satisfaction was mediated by
attachment, and if the moderators (i.e., gender, gender role, and depression) could affect the
mediation effect.
13
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Descriptive statistics and gender difference. Descriptive statistics for the pertinent
variables are provided in Table 1. Gender differences were significant in a) personal distress,
with female reporting higher scores than male, t(64)=2.97, p<.001, Cohen’s d=0.73
(Mfemale=13.36, SD=5.02; Mmale=9.97, SD=4.21); b) perspective taking, in which males had
higher scores than females t(64)=-2.92, p<.001, Cohen’s d=0.72 (Mfemale=15.51, SD=3.40;
Mmale=18.00, SD=3.49); c) masculinity, in which male had a slightly higher score than females,
t(64)=-2.09, p=.041, Cohen’s d=0.51 (Mfemale=4.64, SD=0.65; Mmale=5.01, SD=0.78); d) trait
anxiety, with females reporting higher scores than males, t(64)=2.28, p=.026, Cohen’s d=0.58
(Mfemale=44.09, SD=9.49; Mmale=38.78, SD=8.91); and e) the numbers of cognitive words used in
the short notes, with women using more cognitive process words than males, t(64)=2.25, p=.027,
Cohen’s d=0.55 (Mfemale=16.75, SD=9.35; Mmale=11.86, SD=8.19). No significant gender
differences were found for any of the other variables.
Effectiveness check of behavioral task. A paired-samples t-test was conducted to
compare participants’ baseline state anxiety and their state anxiety during the task. Results
showed that participants felt more anxious during the tasks than at the baseline level,
t(65)=10.349, p<.001, Cohen’s d=1.27 (Mbaseline=12.67, SD=2.90; Marousal=18.59, SD=4.02). This
indicated that the behavioral tasks successfully elicited participants’ feelings of anxiety and
stress.
14
Word use. The mean number of the words females used in the brief notes was not
different from those that males used. Table 2 showed the correlations among word use, empathy,
and relationship satisfaction. Affective word use was negatively related to cognitive word use,
r=-.403, p=.001. Positive word use was negatively related to both negative word use (r=-.260,
p=.035) and cognitive word use (r=-.329, p=.007). None of the word frequencies were related to
behavioral empathy. However, anxious word use was negatively related to self-report empathic
concern (r=-.285, p=.020) and relationship satisfaction (r=-.293, p=.017). Sad word use was
negatively related to perspective taking, r=-.243, p=.050. Table 3 showed the correlations
between a person’s word use and his/her partner’s word use. Affective word use was positively
related to partner’s affective word use, r=.412, p=.001, anxious word use was positively related
to partner’s anxious word use, r=.509, p<.001, and angry word use was also positively related to
partner’s angry word use, r=.779, p<.001,
Correlations. To analyze data in a dyadic way, we explored the correlations for actor
variables and partner variables respectively. Table 4 is the correlation table for actor effect, and
Table 5 is the correlation table for partner effect.
Gender Differences in Empathy (Behavioral and Self-reported)
In the behavioral task, the task responder rated their own state anxiety during the task,
and his/her partner rated that feeling from his/her view. According to our operational definition,
behavioral empathy was indicated by the relation between the self-rated feelings and partner’s
view of those feelings. The relations between those two ratings relation was significantly
positive, r(66)=.32, p=.009. We then examined this correlation separately for males and females.
Results showed a significant positive relation for females, r(33)=.42, p=.016; however, males’
view of their partners’ anxious feelings were not related to their partners’ own rated feelings,
15
r(33)=.21, p=.242. The females’ correlations was not significantly stronger than male’s, z=.45,
p(one-tailed) =.32, which means female’s behavioral empathy was not significantly higher than
male’s.
Empathy was also measured by self-report questionnaires as empathic concern and
perspective taking. Males’ perspective taking was significantly higher than females’, t(64)=-2.92,
p<.001, Cohen’s d=0.72 (Mfemale=15.51, SD=3.40; Mmale=18.00, SD=3.49), whereas the gender
difference in empathic concern was not significant. Results of regression model revealed that the
gender difference in perspective taking was still significant after controlling for gender role,
β=.39, p=.002, R2=.158.
We also used a subtraction method using a person’s self-rated state anxiety during the
task and his/her partner’s evaluations of that feeling to calculate the difference between couple
members. This was also used as an indicator of behavioral empathy accuracy. We found
behavioral empathy accuracy was not related to the self-reported empathy measured by
questionnaire.
Relation between Empathy and Relationship Satisfaction
An actor-partner interdependent models (see Figure 1) was tested to estimate the effects
of empathy on relationship satisfaction on a dyadic level. Paths a1 and a2 comprise the actor
effects, while paths b1 and b2 comprise the partner effect. For behavioral empathy, neither the
actor effect nor the partner effect was significant. We then divided participants into three groups
according to their behavioral empathy accuracy scores - the lowest 27% participants were
represented by -1, which indicated that they tended to underestimate their partner’s anxious
feelings, the highest 27% were in group 1 as they tended to overestimate their partner’s anxious
feelings, and the middle part were in group 0, which means they evaluated their partner’s
16
feelings accurately. However, the results for the APIM using the categorical behavioral empathy
remain non-significant. Regarding the self-report measures of empathy, both the actor effects and
the partner effects of empathic concern on relationship satisfaction were significant, Bactor = .51,
p<.001, Bpartner = .44, p=.002. However, only the actor effect was significant for perspective
taking, Bactor = .47, p=.004.
Gender, gender role (masculinity and femininity), and depression were then included in
the actor-partner interdependent model between empathic concern and relationship satisfaction
respectively as moderators. Surprisingly, neither gender nor depression significantly moderated
the effects of empathic concern on relationship satisfaction (through either the actor or partner
paths). We found the scores of depression ranged from 0 to 36, and most participants got a
relatively low score (more than 50% participants get a score lower than 9). A score of 14 was
used as a cutoff
(https://www.commondataelements.ninds.nih.gov/doc/noc/beck_depression_inventory_n
oc_link.pdf) to generate a categorical variable of 0 (lower or equal to 14, which means minimal
depressive symptoms) and 1 (greater than 14, equal to or more than minor depressive
symptoms). We then tested a general linear model using the dummy coded depression and
empathic concern to predict relationship satisfaction; however, the main effect of depression and
the interaction effect were still non-significant. Femininity did not moderate the relation between
empathic concern and relationship satisfaction, while masculinity significantly moderated the
actor effect of empathic concern on relationship satisfaction in a negative direction, Bactor = .55,
p<.001, Bpartner = .39, p=.004, Bactor*masculinity = -.54, p=.001.
We then tested whether the relation between empathy and relationship satisfaction was
mediated by attachment. As shown in Tables 4 & 5, neither behavioral empathy nor perspective
17
taking was related to relationship satisfaction. Empathic concern was negatively related to
attachment avoidance (r(66)=-.434, p<.001) and positively related to relationship satisfaction
(r(66)=.491, p<.001), but the relation between empathic concern and attachment anxiety was not
significant. Attachment avoidance and relationship satisfaction was negatively related (r(66)=-
.503, p<.001). Empathic concern was negatively related to partner’s attachment anxiety (r(66)=-
.325, p=.008) and positively associated with partner’s relationship satisfaction (r(66)=.454,
p<.001), but it was not related to partner’s attachment avoidance, and the relation between
partner’s attachment anxiety and relationship satisfaction was significant (r(66)=-.556, p<.001).
The lack of potential partner effect of attachment avoidance and actor effect of avoidance
suggest that the mediated APIM should be discarded; thus, we tested two simple mediated
models to explore the relation between empathic concern and relationship satisfaction: one was
for attachment avoidance and the other one was for partner’s attachment anxiety. As shown in
Figure 3, the indirect effect of empathy concern on relationship satisfaction through attachment
avoidance was significant, and the direct effect after excluding the indirect effect decreased but
remained significant, which means attachment avoidance partially mediated the relation between
empathic concern and relationship satisfaction. Figure 4 revealed that the indirect effect of
empathy concern on relationship satisfaction through partner’s attachment anxiety was
significant, and the direct effect after excluding the indirect effect decreased but remain
significant, which means partner’s attachment avoidance partially mediated the relation between
empathic concern and relationship satisfaction.
Empathy and Relationship satisfaction – Moderated Mediation Model
Since the actor effect of empathic concern on relationship satisfaction was moderated by
depression, and was partially mediated by attachment avoidance and partner’s attachment
18
anxiety, we finally tested moderated mediation models including both depression and attachment
avoidance/anxiety (see Figure 5).The final model is shown in Figure 6. When adding the
potentially moderating impact of masculinity, the relation between empathic concern and
relation satisfaction continues to be partially mediated through its [empathic concern] influence
on attachment avoidance (but still has some direct effect). In addition, masculine gender role
significantly moderated the relation between empathic concern and attachment avoidance.
Specifically, attachment avoidance mediated the relation between empathic concern and
relationship satisfaction for only those with average or low masculinity; attachment mediation
was stronger when masculinity was low than when masculinity was average. The moderation
effect of masculinity on the relation between empathic concern and partner’s attachment anxiety
was not significant.
19
Discussion
The aims of the present study were a) to examine gender differences in empathy when
adopting multiple measurements, b) to assess the effects of empathy on relationship satisfaction,
and c) to explore other predictors of relationship satisfaction by assessing romantic attachment
(attachment-related avoidance and attachment-related anxiety), depressive levels, and gender
role. Specifically, the present study measured these effects within a dyadic context by
considering both actor effect and partner effect.
Gender differences were found in empathy in the present study. Females tended to show
higher empathy than males from a behavioral standpoint. Their guesses of their partners’ anxiety
were related significantly in the positive direction with their partners’ self-report anxiety
(behavioral assessment of empathy). In contrast, males reported higher perspective taking when
using a self-report measurement; however, their rated score about their partners’ feelings during
the task was not related to their partners’ actual feelings. This paradox may indicate that males
overestimate their perspective-taking ability, at least in terms of their partners’ emotional
experience, given that they were less sensitive to emotions than females. Specifically, higher
scores in perspective taking should indicate that males better understand their partners’
situations; however, when males tune into their partners’ situations, they may focus more on the
cognitive components than the emotional factors, so their guessed feelings match their partners’
rated feelings more poorly. These findings were consistent with some of the previous studies
(Bryant, 1982; Martin & Hoffman, 1977).
20
The non-significant relation between behavioral empathy and self-report empathy may be
due to the different components of empathy being assessed when using different measurements.
In this study, behavioral empathy was more related to specific emotional situations, and probably
reflects a person’s state empathy skill; scores on the self-report questionnaire reflect beliefs the
participants had in their own empathy abilities, and was not necessarily linked to specific
situations in which participants are involved. Since the measures ask participants to evaluate
items only based on general situations, self-report empathy may reflect trait empathy skill. It is
possible that a person’s trait empathy does not consistently predict state empathy.
Another explanation for the lack of connection between behavioral and self-report
empathy in this study is that measures of empathy may be sensitive to different emotions. In our
study, we only assessed anxious feelings in behavioral tasks, so it is possible that the empathy
skills measured by self-report questionnaire were not sensitive to stress feelings in behavioral
tasks, explaining the non-significant relation between self-report empathy and behavioral
empathy. Previous studies pointed out that empathy plays an important role in sharing other’s
pain feelings (Jackson, Meltzoff, & Decety, 2005) and fear (Shelton & Rogers, 1981) when
measuring the neural processes. Again, the different patterns of gender differences in empathy
confirmed Eisenberg and Lennon’s (1983) findings that when using different measurements,
gender difference in empathy could be inconsistent.
As predicted, the dyadic relation between empathy and relationship satisfaction was only
significant for self-rated empathic concern, which means the relationship satisfaction was not
merely predicted by an individual’s own empathic concern, but also predicted by his/her
partner’s empathic concern. However, the relations for behavioral empathy and self-rated
21
perspective taking were not significant. Based on these findings, relationship satisfaction may
not be predicted by empathy skills in specific situations or cognitive components in empathy, and
it is more strongly related to the general empathic concern. Since behavioral empathy is more
about state empathy skill, it may be unstable and could be influenced by many factors. For
example, if a person had suffered for a short period and did not receive empathic responses
during that period, some individuals would not associate this with long-term relationship
satisfaction; on the contrary, empathic concern is more stable and may not be changed easily, so
it may be recognized by the partner as a personal trait and might be associated with relationship
satisfaction more than the behavioral empathy. Additionally, empathic concern played a more
important role than perspective taking in predicting relationship satisfaction.
Inconsistent with our hypothesis, feminine gender role didn’t moderate the relation
between empathy and relationship satisfaction, and masculine gender role moderated the relation
between empathic concern and relationship satisfaction. Specifically, it moderated only the actor
effect in a negative direction, which means for those higher in masculinity, the connection
between empathic concern and relationship satisfaction was weaker. It is unclear why femininity
was not a significant moderator, but the fact that there were no significant gender differences in
femininity might explain the lack of an effect. Masculinity, on the other hand, might play a role
in both perspective taking and in taking a more active role in relationship maintenance
(Helgeson, 1994). Depression did not moderate the relation between empathy and relationship
satisfaction, which contradicted our hypothesis. This may because all participants were recruited
from a general community with most people reporting low levels of depression; thus, we could
not test how the relation between empathy and relationship satisfaction would change as
depression reaches a very high level.
22
We were hoping to examine the mediated APIM model between empathy and
relationship satisfaction through attachment; however, we found attachment avoidance only
mediated the actor effect of empathic concern on relationship satisfaction. This indicates that a
person’s own empathy could predict a lower level of his/her own attachment avoidance, and thus
predicted a higher level of relationship satisfaction. In contrast, empathic concern did not predict
partner’s attachment avoidance. Attachment anxiety only mediated the partner effect of
empathic concern on the relationship satisfaction, which means a person’s own empathy concern
was negatively related to his/her partner’s attachment anxiety, and further predicted higher
relationship satisfaction, but not for own attachment anxiety. These results may suggest that the
impact of attachment avoidance is based more on the person’s model of self rather than partner,
whereas attachment anxiety affects the partner more than a person him/herself.
Masculine gender role moderated the association between empathic concern and
relationship satisfaction through attachment avoidance, but this moderation effect was not
significant for the indirect effect of empathic concern on relationship satisfaction through
partner’s attachment anxiety. Specifically, attachment avoidance mediated the relation between
empathic concern and relationship satisfaction only for those with average or low masculinity,
and attachment mediation was stronger when masculinity was low than when masculinity was
average. The results of the model indicated that gender role played a role in affecting a person’s
own attachment avoidance and relationship satisfaction, but it was not important to his/her
partner’s attachment anxiety.
There are some limitations in the present study. Most of our participants were college
students, so the generalizability to a general population might be a problem. Half of the
participants were in a relationship less than one year (at least six months), and relationship length
23
was not associated with any other variables. It is possible that the short-term relationship was not
stable, as the length of relationship might be considered when talking about the relationship
satisfaction. The effects of environment and community culture might also be considered in the
future study.
This study confirmed the existence of gender differences in empathy, and indicated how
the patterns of gender difference may be influence by methods adopted to measure empathy. This
study supports the importance of attachment, masculinity, and dyadic empathy in relationship
satisfaction. The use of a novel behavioral task to elicit and measure empathy is highlighted.
Adult attachment is supposed to be derived from parent-child attachment in early life, so future
study may examine the effect of early parent-child attachment on romantic relationship
satisfaction in adulthood.
24
References
Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorder, 34(2), 163-175. doi: 10.1023/B:JADD.0000022607.19833.00
Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J. E., & Erbaugh, J. K. (1962). Reliability of
psychiatric diagnoses: 2. A study of consistency of clinical judgments and ratings. American Journal of Psychiatry, 119(4), 351-357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/ajp.119.4.351
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162. doi: 10.1037/h0036215 Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social
and Personal relationships, 7(2), 147-178. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0265407590072001
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a
four-category model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 61(2), 226-244. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226
Bryant, B. K. (1982). An index of empathy for children and adolescents. Child development, 53,
413-425. doi: 10.2307/1128984 Carnelley, K. B., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Jaffe, K. (1996). Attachment, caregiving, and
relationship functioning in couples: Effects of self and partner. Personal Relationships, 3(3), 257-278. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00116.x
Christov-Moore, L., Simpson, E. A., Coudé, G., Grigaityte, K., Iacoboni, M., & Ferrari, P. F.
(2014). Empathy: Gender effects in brain and behavior. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 46, 604-627. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.09.001
Chung, M. S. (2014). Pathways between attachment and marital satisfaction: The mediating roles
of rumination, empathy, and forgiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 246-251. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.032
Cohen, D., & Strayer, J. (1996). Empathy in conduct-disordered and comparison youth.
Developmental Psychology, 32(6), 988-998. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.32.6.988
25
Collins, N. L., Kane, H. S., Metz, M. A., Cleveland, C., Khan, C., Winczewski, L., Bowen, J., & Prok, T. (2014). Psychological, physiological, and behavioral responses to a partner in need: The role of compassionate love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(5), 601-629. doi: 10.1177/0265407514529069
Cramer, D., & Jowett, S. (2010). Perceived empathy, accurate empathy and relationship
satisfaction in heterosexual couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(3),327–349. doi:10.1177/0265407509348384�
Davila, J., Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. (1998). Negative affectivity as a mediator of the
association between adult attachment and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 467-484. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00183.x
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a
multidimensional approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 44, 113-126. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
Davis, M. H., & Oathout, H. A. (1987). Maintenance of satisfaction in romantic relationships:
Empathy and relational competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 397–410. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.2.397
Donges, U. S., Kersting, A., & Suslow, T. (2012). Women’s greater ability to perceive happy
facial emotion automatically: gender differences in affective priming. PLoS One, 7(7), e41745. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041745
Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related
capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94(1), 100-131. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.94.1.100 Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1992). Emotion, regulation, and the development of social
competence. http://psych-www.colorado.edu/~tito/sp03/7536/Eisenberg_2000.pdf Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-
report measures of adult attachment. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(2), 350-365. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350
Feeney, J. A. (1994). Attachment style, communication patterns, and satisfaction across the life
cycle of marriage. Personal Relationships, 1(4), 333-348. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb00069.x
Feeney, J. A. (1999). Adult attachment, emotional control, and marital satisfaction. Personal
Relationships, 6(2), 169-185. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00185.x Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R., Harold, G. T., & Osborne, L. N. (1997). Marital satisfaction and
depression: Different causal relationships for men and women? Psychological Science, 8(5), 351-356. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00424.x
26
Helgeson, V.S. (1994). Relations of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412-428. http://dx.doi.org.resources.library.brandeis.edu/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.412
Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Sex differences in empathy and related behaviors. Psychological
Bulletin, 84(4), 712-722. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.84.4.712 Hollist, C. S., Miller, R. B., Falceto, O. G., & Fernandes, C. L. C. (2007). Marital satisfaction
and depression: A replication of the marital discord model in a Latino sample. Family process, 46(4), 485-498. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2007.00227.x
Ingram, R. E. (1990). Self-focused attention in clinical disorders: review and a conceptual model.
Psychological bulletin, 107(2), 156-176. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.156 Ivtzan, I., Redman, E., & Gardner, H. E. (2012). Gender role and empathy within different
orientations of counselling psychology. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 25(4), 377-388. doi: 10.1080/09515070.2012.711520
Jackson, P. L., Meltzoff, A. N., & Decety, J. (2005). How do we perceive the pain of others? A
window into the neural processes involved in empathy. NeuroImage, 24, 771–779. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.09.006
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and validation of the Basic Empathy
Scale. Journal of adolescence, 29(4), 589-611. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.010 Joireman, J., Needham, T., & Cummings, A. (2002). Relationships between Dimensions of
Attachment and Empathy. North American Journal of Psychology,4(1), 63-80. doi: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2002-17479-007
Jones, K., Welton, S., Oliver, T., & Thoburn, J. (2011). Mindfulness, Spousal Attachment, and
Marital Satisfaction: A Mediated Model. The Family Journal, 19(4), 357-361. doi: 10.1177/1066480711417234.
Karniol, R., Gabay, R., Ochion, Y., & Harari, Y. (1998). Is gender or gender-role orientation a
better predictor of empathy in adolescence? Sex Roles, 39(1-2), 45-59. doi: 10.1023/A:1018825732154
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic analysis. Lambrecht, L., Kreifelts, B., & Wildgruber, D. (2014). Gender differences in emotion
recognition: Impact of sensory modality and emotional category. Cognition & emotion, 28(3), 452-469. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2013.837378
Lengua, L. J., & Stormshak, E. A. (2000). Gender, gender roles, and personality: Gender
differences in the prediction of coping and psychological symptoms. Sex Roles, 43(11-12), 787-820. doi: 10.1023/A:1011096604861
27
Lussier, Y., Sabourin, S., & Turgeon, C. (1997). Coping strategies as moderators of the
relationship between attachment and marital adjustment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(6), 777-791. doi: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0265407597146004
Meyers, S., & Landsberger, S. (2002). Direct and indirect pathways between adult attachment
style and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 9(2), 159-172. doi: 10.1111/1475-6811.00010
Miller, R. B., Mason, T. M., Canlas, J. M., Wang, D., Nelson, D. A., & Hart, C. H. (2013).
Marital satisfaction and depressive symptoms in China. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(4), 677-682. doi: 10.1037/a0033333
Mitrofan, L., & Dumitrache, S. D. (2012). Interconnections between Assertiveness and Empathy
in Couple Relationships. Journal of Experiential Psychotherapy/Revista de PSIHOterapie Experientiala, 15(3).
Ng, K. M., Loy, J. T. C., MohdZain, Z., & Cheong, W. (2013). Gender, Race, Adult Attachment,
and Marital Satisfaction Among Malaysians. The Family Journal, 21(2), 198-207. doi: 10.1177/1066480712468268
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Parker, L. E., & Larson, J. (1994). Ruminative coping with depressed
mood following loss. Journal of personality and social psychology, 67(1), 92. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.1.92
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2000). The role of rumination in depressive disorders and mixed
anxiety/depressive symptoms. Journal of abnormal psychology, 109(3), 504-511. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.109.3.504
Nummenmaa, L., Hirvonen, J., Parkkola, R., & Hietanen, J. K. (2008). Is emotional contagion
special? An fMRI study on neural systems for affective and cognitive empathy. Neuroimage, 43(3), 571-580. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.08.014
O’Connor, L. E., Berry, J. W., Weiss, J., & Gilbert, P. (2002). Guilt, fear, submission, and
empathy in depression. Journal of affective disorders, 71(1), 19-27. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0327(01)00408-6
Péloquin, K., & Lafontaine, M. F. (2010). Measuring empathy in couples: Validity and reliability
of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index for Couples. Journal of personality assessment, 92(2), 146-157. doi: 10.1080/00223890903510399
Péloquin, K., Lafontaine, M., & Brassard, A. (2011). A dyadic approach to the study of romantic
attachment, dyadic empathy, and psychological partner aggression. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(7), 915-942. doi: 10.1177/0265407510397988
28
Rueckert, L., & Naybar, N. (2008). Gender differences in empathy: The role of the right hemisphere. Brain and cognition, 67(2), 162-167. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2008.01.002
Senchak, M., & Leonard, K. E. (1993). The role of spouses' depression and anger in the
attribution—relationship satisfaction relation. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 17(4), 397-409. doi: 10.1007/BF01177662
Shelton, M. Lou, & Rogers, R. W. (1981). Fear-arousing and empathy-arousing appeals to help:
The pathos of persuasion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 366–378. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1981.tb00829.x
Thoma, P., Zalewski, I., von Reventlow, H. G., Norra, C., Juckel, G., & Daum, I. (2011).
Cognitive and affective empathy in depression linked to executive control. Psychiatry research, 189(3), 373-378. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2011.07.030
Trusty, J., Ng, K. M., & Watts, R. E. (2005). Model of effects of adult attachment on emotional
empathy of counseling students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83(1), 66-77. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6678.2005.tb00581.x
Wicker, B., Keysers, C., Plailly, J., Royet, J. P., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (2003). Both of Us
Disgusted in My Insula: The Common Neural Basis of Seeing and Feeling Disgust. Neuron, 40, 655-664. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00679-2
Yang, C. Y., Decety, J., Lee, S., Chen, C., & Cheng, Y. (2009). Gender differences in the mu
rhythm during empathy for pain: an electroencephalographic study. Brain research, 1251, 176-184. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.11.062
29
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of Measures for Males and Females
General Female Male t test, p value
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
Behavioral Empathy 1.16 (4.58)
0.93 (4.31)
1.39 (4.89)
ns
Personal Distress 11.66 (4.90)
13.36 (5.02)
9.97 (4.21)
t(64)=2.97, p=.004
Empathy
Empathic Concern 22.81
(3.82) 22.90
(3.36) 22.72
(4.28) ns
Perspective Taking 16.75 (3.64)
15.51 (3.40)
18.00 (3.49)
t(64)=-2.92, p=.005
Adult Romantic Attachment
Anxiety 54.03
(18.91) 56.87
(16.77) 51.18
(20.71) ns
Avoidance 43.86 (13.87)
44.51 (13.24)
43.21 (14.66)
ns
Relationship Satisfaction 38.77 (5.14)
38.03 (5.34)
39.51 (4.89)
ns
Gender Role
Masculinity 4.83
(0.74) 4.64
(0.65) 5.01
(0.78) t(64)=-2.09,
p=.041 Femininity 5.00
(0.56) 5.10
(0.60) 4.89
(0.51) ns
Depression 10.80 (7.08)
11.75 (8.38)
9.84 (5.46)
ns
Trait Anxiety 41.43 (9.74)
44.09 (9.49)
38.78 (8.91)
t(64)=2.28, p=.026
Word Counting
Cognitive words 14.31
(9.06) 16.75
(9.35) 11.86
(8.19) t(64)=2.25,
p=.027 Affective words 16.30
(10.76) 15.61
(8.73) 16.99
(12.57) ns
Positive words 10.77 (10.11)
10.65 (8.75)
10.88 (11.44)
ns
Negative words 5.38 (7.44)
4.95 (5.19)
5.82 (9.23)
ns
Anxious words 2.68 (4.62)
2.84 (4.89)
2.52 (4.41)
ns
Angry words 0.40 (1.64)
0.54 (2.01)
0.25 (1.19)
ns
Sad words 0.46 (1.60)
0.54 (1.75)
0.39 (1.45)
ns
30
Table 2 Correlation Table
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Behavioral empathy 2. Empathic concern -0.025
3. Perspective taking -0.053 .373** 4. Satisfaction -0.006 .491** .359**
5. Affective words -0.172 -0.047 0.007 0.023 6. Anxious words -0.005 -.285* -0.096 -.293* 0.141
7. Angry words 0.033 0.061 -0.113 -0.027 0.037 -0.122 8. Sad words 0.13 -0.082 -.243* 0.044 -0.03 -0.086 -0.072
9. Cognitive words -0.078 0.093 -0.024 -0.21 -.403** -0.035 0.198 -0.024 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
31
Table 3 Correlation Table for Word Use
Affect Anxious Angry Sad Cognitive
Partner affect .412** -0.008 0.085 -0.062 -0.101 Partner anxious -0.008 .509** -0.117 -0.108 0.13 Partner angry 0.085 -0.117 .779** -0.072 0.095 Partner sad -0.062 -0.108 -0.072 0.187 0.045 Partner cognitive -0.101 0.13 0.095 0.045 -0.056
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
32
Table 4 Correlation Table for Actor Effect
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Behavioral Empathy
2. Personal Distress 0.168 3. Empathic
Concern -0.025 -0.04 4. Perspective
Taking -0.053 -0.196 .373** 5. Attachment
Anxiety 0.235 .388** -0.233 -.273* 6. Attachment
Avoidance 0.122 0.125 -.434** -0.238 .394** 7. Relationship
Satisfaction -0.006 -0.217 .491** .359** -
.496** -.503** 8. Masculinity -.332** -.498** 0.066 0.077 -0.135 -0.027 0.11
9. Femininity -0.124 0.165 .342** 0.129 -0.041 -.353** .275* 0.08 10. Depression 0.015 .368** -0.148 -0.208 .451** 0.229 -0.23 -0.093 0.037
11. Trait Anxiety 0.138 .551** -0.059 -.288* .484** 0.219 -.305* -.363** 0.06 .731**
12. Anxious Words -0.005 0.09 -.285* -0.096 .345** 0.114 -.293* -0.039 -
0.092 0.228 0.193
13. Angry Words 0.033 0.038 0.061 -0.113 0.147 0.019 -
0.027 -0.071 -
0.125 .311* .242* -0.122 14. Sad Words 0.13 -0.017 -0.082 -.243* -0.017 0.131 0.044 0.025 0.081 0.083 -0.029 -0.086 -0.072
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
33
Table 5 Correlation Table for Partner Effect
Behavioral Empathy
Personal Distress
Empathic Concern
Perspective Taking
Attachment Anxiety
Attachment Avoidance
Relationship Satisfaction
Partner Behavioral Empathy -.505** -0.234 -0.146 0.027 -0.088 -0.079 0.043 Partner centered partner PD -0.234 -0.205 -0.155 -0.017 -0.087 0.024 -0.179 Partner Empathic Concern -0.146 -0.155 .324** 0.217 -.325** -0.214 .454** Partner Perspective Taking 0.027 -0.017 0.217 .265* -0.112 -0.091 0.169 Partner Attachment Anxiety -0.088 -0.087 -.325** -0.112 .276* .243* -.556** Partner Attachment Avoidance -0.079 0.024 -0.214 -0.091 .243* 0.055 -0.207 Partner Relationship Satisfaction 0.043 -0.179 .454** 0.169 -.556** -0.207 .550** Partner Masculinity .385** .267* 0.044 -0.062 0.099 0.173 0.054 Partner Femininity 0.102 -0.092 0.234 .321** -0.193 -0.148 0.121 Partner Depression 0.031 -0.085 0.044 0.114 0.1 -0.027 -0.233 Partner Trait Anxiety -0.109 -0.204 -0.018 0.111 0.06 -0.1 -0.22 Partner Anxious Words 0.122 0.045 -0.162 0.055 .247* 0.113 -.366**
34
Table 5 (Continued) Correlation Table for Partner Effect
Masculinity Femininity Depression Trait Anxiety Anxious Words
Partner Behavioral Empathy .385** 0.102 0.031 -0.109 0.122 Partner centered partner PD .267* -0.092 -0.085 -0.204 0.045 Partner Empathic Concern 0.044 0.234 0.044 -0.018 -0.162 Partner Perspective Taking -0.062 .321** 0.114 0.111 0.055 Partner Attachment Anxiety 0.099 -0.193 0.1 0.06 .247* Partner Attachment Avoidance 0.173 -0.148 -0.027 -0.1 0.113 Partner Relationship Satisfaction 0.054 0.121 -0.233 -0.22 -.366** Partner Masculinity -0.22 -0.009 -0.051 0.069 0.076 Partner Femininity -0.009 -0.06 -0.049 -0.115 0.017 Partner Depression -0.051 -0.049 0.076 0.127 0.1 Partner Trait Anxiety 0.069 -0.115 0.127 0.044 0.053 Partner Anxious Words 0.076 0.017 0.1 0.053 .509** **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
35
Table 6 APIM– effects of empathy on relationship satisfaction
Parameter Estimate Std. Error df t Sig. 95% Confidence
Interval
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Intercept 0.027 0.60 31 0.04 0.964 -1.20 1.26 Empathic Concern 0.514 0.13 58.21 3.74 0.000 0.23 0.78 Partner Empathic Concern 0.441 0.13 59.73 3.19 0.002 0.16 0.71 a Dependent Variable: dyadic satisfaction.
36
Figure 1. APIM – effects of empathy on relationship satisfaction
Figure Caption: Figure 1 shows the actor-partner interdependent model to explore the relation between empathy and relationship satisfaction on a dyadic level. Paths a1 and a2 reflect the actor effect of empathy on relationship satisfaction; paths b1 and b2 reflect the partner effect of empathy on relationship satisfaction.
Empathy
Partner's Empathy
Relationship satisfaction
Partner's satisfaction
a1
a2
b2
b1
37
Figure 2. Effects of empathy on relationship satisfaction – Masculinity as a Moderator
Figure Caption: Figure 2 is a moderated actor-partner interdependent model, which examined the relation between empathy and relationship satisfaction when masculinity was included as a moderator. Both a person’s empathy and his/her partner’s empathy predicted relationship satisfaction positively, and masculinity only affect the actor effect of empathy on relationship satisfaction on a negative direction.
Empathy
Partner's Empathy
Relationship satisfaction
Masculinity
38
Figure 3. Relation between empathic concern and relationship satisfaction – attachment avoidance as mediator
Figure Caption: Figure 3 shows a mediation model used to test the effect of empathic concern on relationship satisfaction through attachment avoidance. The indirect effect was significant, and the direct effect decreased after excluding the indirect effect but remained significant. Attachment avoidance partially mediated the relation between empathic concern and relationship satisfaction.
Empathic concern
Relationship satisfaction
Attachment avoidance Β=-1.57*** se=.40
Β=-.13** se=.04
Β=.45** se=.15 (Β=.66*** se=.14)
39
Figure 4. Relation between empathic concern and relationship satisfaction – attachment anxiety as mediator
Figure Caption: Figure 4 shows a mediation model used to test the effect of empathic concern on relationship satisfaction through partner’s attachment anxiety. The indirect effect was significant, and the direct effect decreased after excluding the indirect effect but remained significant. Partner’s attachment anxiety partially mediated the relation between empathic concern and relationship satisfaction.
Empathic concern
Relationship satisfaction
Partner’s attachment anxiety
Β=-1.60** se=.58
Β=-.12*** se=.02
Β=.46** se=.13 (Β=.66*** se=.14)
40
Figure 5. Effects of empathy on relationship satisfaction – Moderated mediation model
Figure Caption: Figure 5 hypothesized a moderated mediation model. It was predicted that empathic concern would affect relationship satisfaction through attachment, and masculinity would have an effect on the relation between empathic concern and attachment.
Empathic concern
Relationship satisfaction
Attachment
Masculinity
41
Figure 6. Relation between empathic concern and relationship satisfaction – moderated mediation model
Figure Caption: Figure 6 was the statistic model of the moderated mediation model. Empathic concern was associated with relationship satisfaction both directly and indirectly through attachment avoidance. Masculinity significantly moderated the effect of empathic concern on attachment avoidance in a positive direction.
Empathic concern
Relationship satisfaction
Attachment avoidance Β=-.13** se=.04
Β=-.23 se=2.03
Β=-1.68*** se=.39
Β=1.32** se=.49
Β=.45** se=.15 (Β=.66*** se=.14)