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
45
Embed
Effects of Couple’s Empathy on Relationship Satisfaction ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
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.
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
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
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
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.