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)