Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2014, 55, 477–482
DOI: 10.1111/sjop.12142
Personality and Social Psychology Empathy in intimate relationships: The role of positive illusions PIETERNEL DIJKSTRA,1 DICK P.H. BARELDS,2 HINKE A.K. GROOTHOF3 and MARNIX VAN BRUGGEN4 1
NCOI Business School, The Netherlands University of Groningen, The Netherlands 3 Open University of the Netherlands 4 Remember – Practice for Contextual Therapy and Advice, The Netherlands 2
Dijkstra, P., Barelds, D. P. H., Groothof, H. A. K. & van Bruggen, M. (2014). Empathy in intimate relationships: The role of positive illusions. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 55, 477–482. Previous studies have shown empathy to be an important aspect of a high quality intimate relationship. Likewise, positive illusions about a partner’s characteristics have been shown to contribute to relationship quality. The present study connects these issues by examining the degree to which individuals hold positive illusions about a partner’s level of empathy, and the extent to which these positive illusions are related to relationship quality and adjustment in a sample of 55 couples. Results showed that positive illusions concerning a partner’s level of empathy were only held by women. In addition, people’s evaluation of relationship quality and adjustment was consistently related to both their own and their partner’s positive empathy illusions. Finally, an interaction effect was found between participant sex and the partner effect of positive empathy illusions: the illusions held by the partner (only for men) were related to relationship quality. Results and implications for theory and relationship counseling are discussed. Key words: Positive illusions, empathy, relationship quality. Pieternel Dijkstra, NCOI Business school, Department of Psychology, Marathon 7, Hilversum, The Netherlands. Tel: +31 598380330; e-mail: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION Empathy may be defined as an emotional response of compassion and concern caused by witnessing someone else in need (e.g., Stocks, Lishner, Waits & Downum, 2011; Woltin, Corneille, Yzerbyt & Forster, 2011). Empathy is believed to elicit an approach orientation toward others in need and to facilitate pro-social behavior (e.g., Batson & Shaw, 1991; Stocks, Lishner & Decker, 2009). It has been suggested that empathy reflects the deeply rooted drive of parental nurturance as it evolved in humans to help offspring survive. Were humans not interested in protecting, helping and nurturing their vulnerable young, our species would have become extinct quickly. Throughout history, authors have argued that through cognitive generalization based on learning and experience, empathy is often also felt for adults and animals in need (e.g., Lishner, Batson & Huss, 2011). Empathy also plays an essential role in the development and maintenance of pair bonds (Rostowski, 2009). One of the main reasons for this is that empathy forms a key aspect of emotional support, a strong correlate of relationship satisfaction (Cramer, 2003; Rostowski, 2009). In line with this, Cramer and Jowett (2010), for example, showed that perceived empathy of the partner was related to relationship satisfaction. Studying empathy and the relationship aspects that are related to it therefore seems important. It may help gain more insight into what makes intimate relationships satisfactory and what is needed to help them blossom. In relation to empathy, the present study examines an important relationship phenomenon that previous studies have shown to be related to relationship quality, © 2014 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
that is, positive illusions. More specifically, the present study examined to what extent positive illusions with regard to a partner’s empathy predict relationship quality in a sample of cohabiting and married heterosexual couples from The Netherlands.
POSITIVE ILLUSIONS Several studies have found that individuals often rate their partner overly positive on a number of characteristics, such as kindness, intelligence, and physical attractiveness. This phenomenon has been referred to as positive illusions (e.g., Barelds, Dijkstra, Koudenburg & Swami, 2011; Murray & Holmes, 1997). A positive illusion about a characteristic of the partner can be said to occur when an individual’s ratings of his or her partner on a certain characteristic are more positive than the individual’s partner’s own ratings on the same characteristic (Barelds et al., 2011; Murray, Holmes & Griffin, 1996). For instance, a man can be said to possess a positive illusion about, for instance, his wife’s intelligence, when he rates her as more intelligent than she rates herself. Positive illusions about a partner’s characteristics have been found to predict greater relationship satisfaction, love, commitment, and trust, and less conflict and ambivalence in both dating and marital relationships (e.g., Barelds & Dijkstra, 2009; Murray & Holmes, 1997). The existence of positive illusions is often explained by the fact that individuals usually invest heavily in pair bonds. Even though, in the beginning of the relationship, they hardly see any flaws in their partner and/or their relationship, after a while partners are often confronted with each other’s flaws, sources of negativity or
478 P. Dijkstra et al. conflict. This may raise the fear that their partner might not be the ‘right’ person after all and that all the investments they have made in the relationship may be wasted (e.g., Murray, 1999; Miller, Niehuis & Huston, 2006). In order to resolve these doubts and diminish their fears, individuals often, unconsciously, develop an image of their partner that emphasizes their partner’s virtues and minimizes his or her flaws (e.g., McNulty, O’Mara & Karney, 2008; Murray, Holmes & Griffin, 1996). These positive illusions help partners to regain a sense of security and derogate alternative partners, and help stabilise their long-term bond (Murray, 1999). Despite the essential role of a partner’s empathy in intimate relationships, no studies have explicitly examined the extent to which individuals hold positive illusions about their partner’s levels of empathy and to what extent these illusions are related to relationship quality. Murray and Holmes (1997; see also Murray et al., 1996) examined positive illusions concerning a partner’s interpersonal qualities, which consisted of 21 positive and negative attributes. Of these characteristics some were related to empathy, such as kind and understanding and responsive to my needs, but most were not, such as self-assured, irrational, witty and intelligent. These authors found that, as individuals held stronger positive illusions about their partner’s qualities, they experienced greater satisfaction, love, and trust, and less conflict and ambivalence in their relationship. From this study, however, it remains unclear to what degree perceptions of empathy contributed to these positive illusions and, as a consequence, to what extent positive illusions regarding empathy are related to relationship outcomes. Based on previous research on partner attributes and positive illusions, we expect that individuals hold positive illusions about their partner’s levels of empathy (Hypothesis 1), and that these positive illusions are related positively to relationship quality (Hypothesis 2). Although previous studies seem to point in the direction of our hypotheses, another scenario is also imaginable. At first sight, empathy may be regarded as a natural phenomenon in romantic relationships, because of its relationship to love and caring. However, more than other relationships, such as friendships, the pair bond may also be characterized by a (temporary) lack of empathy. More than in other relationships (for example friendships or the relations with colleagues), intimate relationships form the context of transference or displacement. Displacement refers to the phenomenon that individuals redirect negative emotions, such as anger, evoked by someone else, towards a third party, without regard for that person’s feelings. A husband who is frustrated by, for instance, his in-laws may redirect these feelings towards his wife, by responding to her with anger or annoyance (Silverstein, 1992). In contrast to other relationships, especially the pair bond may be vulnerable to the transference of negative emotions, because it serves as a ‘safe haven’, in which individuals feel they may vent their emotions as they experience them and may even feel they have the right to do so. In more extreme cases, individuals may even physically abuse their partner because of frustrations felt with life outside of the home, such as poverty or unemployment (e.g., Matjasko, Niolon & Valle, 2013). Thus, with regard to empathy, it is not self-evident that partners hold positive illusions about each other. © 2014 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Scand J Psychol 55 (2014)
METHOD Participants and procedure Participants were recruited by both the first, third and fourth authors of this paper, and two student assistants, by means of snowball sampling and advertisements on Facebook. Participants were all involved in a serious intimate relationship were asked to fill in an online survey on empathy. In addition, they were asked if their partner was also willing to fill in the same online survey. If so, the partner could use the same link, or a separate link, that referred to an exact copy of the survey. Participants were asked to fill in the survey alone (without the partner). The survey was started 152 times. A total of 128 individuals completed the whole study. Some participants reported having had problems with their internet connection, and started over (the interrupted trials are included in the number of 152 mentioned above), whereas some individuals quit the study after reading the introduction. This introduction explained the purpose of the study, stressed the anonymity of the data collection and the voluntary nature of the study, and included an informed consent question. For the purpose of the present study, it was important to collect data from couples. The couples could be identified by asking all participants for their own sex and birth date (year, month, and day), as well as their partner’s sex and birth date (year, month, and day). There were no participants with the same date of birth in the present sample. A total of 55 couples could be identified, leaving 110 participants. Of the remaining 18 participants the partner data were missing. The mean age of the final sample of 110 participants was 40.4 (SD = 11.2, range 21–63). The mean length of the relationship was 15.1 years (SD = 11.5, range 5 months to 44 years). The majority of the sample was married (63.6%), 30.9% was cohabiting, and the remaining 5.5% were not married or cohabiting at the time of the study. A total of 55.3% of the final sample reported having children.
Instruments Empathy. Empathy was measured using the six adjectives proposed by Batson, Fultz and Schoenrade (1987). Participants indicated, on sevenpoint scales (1 = not at all, 7 = very much), the extent to which they showed these six emotions (sympathetic, moved, compassionate, tender, warm and soft-hearted) in the contact with their partner. This empathy measure was administered as both a self report, and as a partner report. For the partner report, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which their partner showed these emotions (in the contact with the participant). Cronbach’s alpha for this empathy scale in the present study was 0.90 for the self-ratings and 0.89 for the partner ratings. Because couple data were collected, and both self and partner ratings were collected, there are four empathy scores in total per couple. Figure 1 illustrates these four scores, as well as the definition of positive illusions in the present study. Relationship measures. The present study included two relationship measures. The first was a 20 item abridged version of the Dutch Relationship Questionnaire (DRQ; Barelds, Luteijn & Arrindell, 2003). The DRQ is a multidimensional measure for relationship quality that is intended to measure the most relevant aspects of marital quality (cf. Barelds, 2005; Barelds & Dijkstra, 2009). The DRQ consists of 80 true-false items that are distributed over five subscales: independence, closeness, identity, conflict resolution and sexuality. These subscales can be summed to obtain a total relationship quality score. Examples of items are “My partner and I agree on most things,” and “I am content with our sex life.” The DRQ has been used previously in a study on positive illusions and relationship quality (Barelds & Dijkstra, 2011). For brevity reasons, the present study used an abridged version of the DRQ, consisting of the 20 items with the highest item-remainder correlations in a sample of 332 married or cohabiting participants (Schulz, 2004). The correlation between the full scale and the abridged version in that study was r = 0.89. Correlations between the abridged version of the DRQ and the Interactional
Positive illusions and empathy 479
Scand J Psychol 55 (2014)
Person being rated Ratings made by
Self
Partner
Self
A
B
Partner
C
D
A = self-ratings of empathy; B = ratings of a partner’s empathy; C = self-ratings of empathy made by the partner; D = ratings of a partner’s empathy made by the partner. Positive illusions about a partner’s empathy(Actor effect) are defined as B–C,and Fig. 1. Empathy scores and empathy positive illusions within couples.
positive illusions about a partner’s empathy held by the partner (Partner effect) as D–A.
Problem Solving Inventory (IPSI; Lange, 1983) and the Triangular Love Scale (TLS; Sternberg, 1997) were r = 0.70 and r = 0.68 respectively, which is comparable to previous studies using the full length DRQ (Barelds et al., 2003). The items of the DRQ-20 were answered on a five-point scale in the present study (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha of the DRQ-20 in the present study was 0.91. The second relationship questionnaire was the seven item short form of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976), the DAS-7 (cf. Sharpley & Cross, 1982; Sharpley & Rogers, 1984). The DAS-7 consists of three items referring to dyadic consensus (e.g., with regard to aims, goals, and things believed important), three items referring to dyadic cohesion (e.g., working together on a project), and one general dyadic satisfaction item (i.e., the degree of happiness in the relationship). In the present study, the three cohesion items were answered on a five-point scale (1 = (almost) always disagree, 5 = (almost) always agree), the three consensus items were answered on a six-point scale (1 = never, 6 = more than once a day), and the general satisfaction item was answered on a sevenpoint scale (1 = extremely unhappy, 7 = extremely happy). Cronbach’s alpha in the present study was 0.79, which is highly comparable to previous studies (e.g., Hunsley, Best, Lefebvre & Vito, 2001; Sharpley & Rogers, 1984). The correlation between the DAS-7 and the DRQ-20 in the present study was r = 0.62.
RESULTS We first calculated the correlations between the variables used in the present study at the individual level (men and women combined). Table 1 lists the correlations between the variables as
rated by the self, as well as rated by the partner. There are therefore four empathy scores in Table 1: self-ratings and partner ratings of empathy and self-ratings and partner ratings of empathy as reported by the partner (also see Fig. 1). By definition, at the individual level the means and standard deviations of the ratings made by the partner for these variables are the same as the ratings made by individuals themselves (see Table 1). As expected, there are significant correlations between empathy of both the self and of the partner and relationship quality and adjustment. For empathy of the self, correlations with the DRQ-20 and DAS-7 were r = 0.45 and r = 0.43 respectively for the self-ratings, and r = 0.38 and r = 0.45 for the partner ratings made by the partner ( ps < 0.01). The expected significant correlations between empathy of the partner and relationship quality and adjustment were also found: r = 0.63 and r = 0.47 for the ratings of the partner and r = 0.44 and r = 0.38 respectively for the self-ratings made by the partner ( ps < 0.01). Table 1 also shows support for assortative mating, that is, the phenomenon that individuals tend to select partners who are similar to themselves, with regard to empathy: self-ratings and partner ratings of empathy correlate r = 0.44 ( p < 0.01), whereas self-ratings of both partners correlate r = 0.20 ( p < 0.05), and partner ratings of both partners correlate r = 0.24 ( p < 0.05). The difference between the latter two correlations was not significant (test for dependent correlations; Z = –0.42, p = 0.67).
Table 1. Means, standard deviations and correlations between empathy of self and partner (rated by both self and partner) and relationship outcomes Rated by self
Rated by self Empathy self (A) Empathy partner (B) DRQ–20 DAS–7 Rated by partner Empathy self (C) Empathy partner (D) DRQ–20 DAS–7
M
SD
Empathy self (A)
21.6 21.8 81.1 29.9
4.7 4.4 10.1 4.2
1.00 0.44** 0.45** 0.43**
21.6 21.8 81.1 29.9
4.7 4.4 10.1 4.2
0.20* 0.49** 0.44** 0.38**
Empathy partner (B)
DRQ–20
DAS–7
1.00 0.63** 0.47**
1.00 0.62**
1.00
0.24* 0.38** 0.45**
0.53** 0.42**
0.58**
Notes: DRQ-20 refers to the twenty–item version of the Dutch Relationship Questionnaire, and DAS-7 refers to the seven–item version of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. The letters between brackets (A, B, C, and D) refer to those listed in Fig. 1. At the individual level, the correlations between ratings by the self and ratings by the partner are the same as the correlations between ratings by the partner and ratings by the self (e.g., the correlation between A and D is the same as the correlation between C and B; r = 0.49). * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. © 2014 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
480 P. Dijkstra et al.
Scand J Psychol 55 (2014)
The agreement between partners regarding relationship quality and adjustment is r = 0.53 and r = 0.58 respectively ( ps < 0.01), which is comparable to previous studies (e.g., Barelds, 2005; Barelds & Dijkstra, 2007). Finally, the self-other agreement (that is: to what extent do self-ratings and partner ratings made by the partner correspond?) is r = 0.49 ( p < 0.01; see Table 1).
Positive illusions regarding a partner’s empathy To examine if individuals hold positive illusions regarding the level of empathy of their partner, we calculated the mean partner empathy ratings and compared these to the self-ratings made by the partner, separately for men and women (see Table 2). Results of these analyses showed that the hypothesis that there would be positive illusions regarding a partner’s level of empathy was only confirmed for women. Whereas women appear to have positive illusions regarding their partner’s level of empathy (t = 2.56, p < 0.05), men’s ratings of their partner’s level of empathy are lower than the self-ratings made by their partners, albeit not significant (t = –1.64, p = ns). This could mean that men slightly underestimate their partner’s level of empathy, or that women slightly overestimate their own level of empathy, or both. Although men and women did not differ significantly in their partner ratings of empathy (column-wise comparison in Table 2), they did with regard to self-ratings of empathy (t = 4.13, p < 0.01) and their positive illusions (t = –2.92, p < 0.01), with women reporting more empathy and more positive illusions.
Positive illusions and relationship quality and adjustment Our second hypothesis stated that positive illusions with regard to empathy would be positively related to relationship quality. Even though, on average, we found no indication for positive empathy illusions for men, it might still be that men who do hold positive empathy illusions are involved in better relationships. The relations between positive empathy illusions and relationship quality and adjustment were examined using the Actor Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; e.g., Campbell & Kashy, 2002; Kashy & Kenny, 2000) as a conceptual framework. The APIM treats the couples as the unit of analysis (e.g. Kashy, Campbell & Harris, 2006), and takes into account that scores that two intimate partners provide are interdependent (also see the results in Table 1). We examined the relations between positive illusions concerning empathy (both Actor and Partner effects) and relationship quality and adjustment by means of multilevel modeling (Linear
Table 2. Mean partner ratings of empathy and self-ratings of empathy made by the partner by participant sex
Men Women t p
Partner ratings
Self–rating by the partner
Positive illusion
22.3 (4.1) 21.3 (4.7) 1.18 0.266
23.3 (4.3) 19.9 (4.4) 4.13 0.000
–1.0 (4.7) 1.4 (4.2) –2.92 0.004
t
p
–1.64 2.56
0.107 0.013
© 2014 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Mixed Models in SPSS 19.0; cf. Kenny, 2004). Actor effects refer to the effects of individuals’ own predictor scores on the dependent variables (e.g., the effect of individuals’ positive illusions on their own relationship), and Partner effects to the effects of partners’ predictor scores on the dependent variables (e.g., the effect of the positive illusions held by partners on individuals’ relationships). Dyads were entered as subjects (distinguishable), and subject sex as the repeated measures variable (covariance type Compound Symmetry Heterogeneous; cf. Kenny, 2004). Both partners’ ratings of a partner’s level of empathy, controlled for the other partner’s self-ratings of empathy (see, for example, Murray et al., 1996), were used to estimate Actor and Partner positive illusion effects. The DRQ-20 and the DAS-7 were used separately as dependent variables. Table 3 summarizes the results. Consistent significant Actor and Partner effects of positive empathy illusions were found. Relationship quality and adjustment are rated more positively if a person or his/her partner holds stronger positive illusions with regard to empathy, confirming our second hypothesis. Relationship quality and adjustment are rated more positively if a person or his/her partner holds stronger positive illusions with regard to empathy, confirming our second hypothesis. Because we did find some sex differences with regard to self-rated empathy and positive empathy illusions (see Table 2), we also examined sex differences with regard to these Actor and Partner effects of positive empathy illusions. For this purpose, we computed two interaction terms, by multiplying the predictor variables with the gender of either the Actor (for the Actor variable), or the Partner (for the Partner variable; cf. Campbell & Kashy, 2002). We centered the variables prior to computing the interaction variables (e.g., Campbell & Kashy, 2002). We added the two interaction terms to the model and found a significant Sex 9 Partner positive illusion interaction for the DRQ (b = 1.92, t = 2.58, p < 0.05), but not for the DAS-7 (b = 0.58, t = 1.68, p = 0.10). The Sex 9 Actor interaction effects were not significant (ts between 0.67 and 1.69, ps > 0.095). To further examine the nature of the significant interaction effect, simple slopes were computed (see Fig. 2). It was found that particularly for men, there is a strong effect of a partner’s (absence of) positive empathy illusions on relationship quality: men whose partners hold strong positive empathy illusions report the highest relationship quality, whereas men whose partner has weak (or negative) empathy illusions report the lowest relationship quality. For women, the effect of having a partner with (or without) positive empathy illusions is smaller.
Table 3. Actor and partner effects for the relations between positive empathy illusions and relationship quality and adjustment
DRQ-20 Actor effect Partner effect DAS-7 Actor effect Partner effect
b
t
p
1.42 0.64
6.62 2.98
0.000 0.004
0.41 0.39
4.18 3.93
0.000 0.000
Positive illusions and empathy 481
Scand J Psychol 55 (2014)
88 86 84 82 80 78 76
illusion low
74
illusion high
72 70
Men
Women
Fig. 2. Interaction between participant sex and partner positive empathy illusions for the DRQ.
and Holmes (1997) and Barelds and Dijkstra (2011). The results also show that particularly for men, there is a strong effect of a partner’s (absence of) positive empathy illusions on relationship quality: men whose partners hold strong positive empathy illusions report the highest relationship quality, whereas men whose partner has weak (or negative) empathy illusions report the lowest relationship quality. For women, the effect of having a partner with (or without) positive empathy illusions is smaller. This finding suggests that for both men and women to feel satisfied about their relationship, especially positive illusions of empathy held by women about their partners contribute to relationship quality. It must be noted, however, that this finding was limited to the DRQ-20, and therefore should be interpreted with caution.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
In line with previous studies on empathy, the present study underlines the important role of empathy in intimate relationships: the present study found relatively strong, positive correlations between both partners’ empathy scores and relationship quality and adjustment. As noted before, an important reason for this may be that empathy forms a key aspect of emotional support: when their partner responds with empathy, individuals feel understood and cared for (Cramer, 2003; Rostowski, 2009). The present study expanded previous studies’ results by showing that individuals may also hold positive illusions with regard to a partner’s level of empathy and that these positive illusions are related to relationship quality and adjustment. Our study, however, also showed that holding such positive illusions is not selfevident: in the present study only women held positive illusions about their partner’s degree of empathy, not men. The present study is the first to reveal such a sex difference in positive illusions. Whereas a number of previous studies have shown both partners to hold positive illusions about their partner (e.g., Murray et al., 1996), a recent study by Barelds and Dijkstra (2011) found both sexes did not hold positive illusions about a partner’s personality in terms of the Big Five, although, if these illusions occurred, they were positively related to relationship quality. Our finding that only women, but not men, hold positive illusions about a partner’s degree of empathy may be explained in several ways. The most likely explanation is that women value empathy more than men, and as a result tend to overestimate their own and their partner’s empathy. Several studies indeed show that women more highly value empathy-related values than men, such as principles of care and giving (Mesch, Brown, Moore & Hayat, 2011) and benevolence (Myyry & Helkama, 2001). Since individuals especially tend to enhance their view of themselves and their loved ones on dimensions that are important to them (e.g., Sedikides, Gaertner & Toguchi, 2003), this may explain why women, but not men, foster positive illusions concerning their partner’s empathy. In addition, our study found both an Actor and a Partner effect of positive illusions on relationship quality and adjustment. That is, relationship quality and adjustment are rated more positively if a person or his/her partner holds stronger positive illusions with regard to empathy. These results are consistent with those found by previous studies, such as those by Murray
Our study shows that women hold positive illusions about their partner’s empathy and that these illusions, whether held by men or women, are positively related to perceptions of relationship quality and adjustment, for both partners. These findings emphasize, again, the important role of empathy in intimate relationships. In addition to contributing to a high degree of emotional support in the relationship (Cramer, 2003; Rostowski, 2009), perceptions of how empathic one’s partner is contribute to relationship functioning. As individuals view their partner’s level of empathy more positively than their partner, the relationship is more likely to blossom. For several reasons, these findings may be of practical relevance to relationship counselors. First, to enhance relationship quality, counselors may help men to become more aware and appreciative of their partner’s empathic responses, feeding positive illusions about their partner’s level of empathy and fostering relationship quality. Second, for marriage counselors, a decline in or loss of positive evaluations of a partner’s empathy among women, but not necessarily among men, may be a sign of relationship dysfunctioning or loss of relationship quality. Such a decline may either be caused by lowered satisfaction with the relationship on the part of the woman and/or by an actual decline in a man’s empathic responses. Especially women in relationships with men who, due to, for instance, autism or another psychological disorder, are limited in their ability to respond empathically to their partner, may suffer from low relationship quality. In addition to the low levels of male empathy within the relationship, the relationship may also suffer from the absence of the woman’s positive illusions regarding her husband’s empathy that is the result of the low levels of empathy from the part of her husband. Helping couples regain higher levels of empathy in their relationship may be achieved by, for instance, teaching men to communicate more empathically towards their partner and women to notice and appreciate (again) these empathic responses. In this way, counselors may help couples build a more empathic relationship. Of course our study was limited in several respects. For instance, our sample was relatively small (n = 55 couples). It therefore seems wise to cross-validate our studies’ findings in a larger sample. In addition, it would be interesting to study the role of positive illusions about a partner’s empathy in a sample
© 2014 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
482 P. Dijkstra et al. consisting of distressed couples, since the couples in the present sample had, on average, good relationships. It is very possible that, in relationships that are more dysfunctional, other interpersonal processes are relevant, and positive illusions play a different role than in healthy functioning relationships. The relationship between positive illusions about a partner’s empathy and relationship functioning may also be affected by a difference in cultural background between partners, since the experience and expression of empathy may differ from culture to culture (Hollan, 2012). Studying these topics more closely seems interesting and relevant for both theory and practice.
REFERENCES Barelds, D. P. H. (2005). Self and partner personality in intimate relationships. European Journal of Personality, 19, 501–518. Barelds, D. P. H. & Dijkstra, P. (2007). Relations between different types of jealousy and self and partner perceptions of relationship quality. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 14, 176–188. Barelds, D. P. H. & Dijkstra, P. (2009). Positive illusions about a partner’s physical attractiveness and relationship quality. Personal Relationships, 16, 263–283. Barelds, D. P. H. & Dijkstra, P. (2011). Positive illusions about a partner’s personality and relationship quality. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 37–43. Barelds, D. P. H., Dijkstra, P., Koudenburg, N. & Swami, V. (2011). An assessment of positive illusions of the physical attractiveness of romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 706–719. Barelds, D. P. H., Luteijn, F. & Arrindell, W. A. (2003). Dutch relationship questionnaire: Manual. Amsterdam: Pearson. Barnett, M. A., King, L. M., Howard, J. A. & Dino, G. A. (1980). Empathy in young children: Relation to parents’ empathy, affection, and emphasis on the feelings of others. Developmental Psychology, 16, 243–244. Batson, D. C., Fultz, J. & Schoenrade, P. A. (1987). Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. Journal of Personality, 55, 19–39. Batson, D. C. & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 107–122. Campbell, L. & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A user-friendly guide. Personal Relationships, 9, 327–342. Cramer, D. (2003). Facilitativeness, conflict, demand for approval, self-esteem, and satisfaction with romantic relationships. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 137, 85–98. Cramer, D. & Jowett, S. (2010). Perceived empathy, accurate empathy and relationship satisfaction in heterosexual couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 327–349. Hollan, D. (2012). Emerging issues in the cross-cultural study of empathy. Emotion Review, 4, 70–78. Hunsley, J., Best, M., Lefebvre, M. & Vito, D. (2001). The seven-item short form of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale: Further evidence for construct validity. American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, 325–335. Kashy, D. A., Campbell, L. & Harris, D. W. (2006). Advances in data analytic approaches for relationship research: The broad utility of hierarchical linear modeling. In A. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 73–90). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kashy, D. A. & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 451– 477). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kenny, D. A. (2004). Dyadic analysis. Retrieved February 22, 2007 from http://davidakenny.net/dyad.htm.
© 2014 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Scand J Psychol 55 (2014) Lange, A. (1983). De Interactionele Probleem Oplossings Vragenlijst, IPOV/The Interactional. Problem Solving Inventory, IPSI. Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus. Lishner, D. A., Batson, D. C. & Huss, E. (2011). Tenderness and sympathy: Distinct empathic emotions elicited by different forms of need. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 614–625. Matjasko, J. L., Niolon, P. H. & Valle, L. A. (2013). The role of economic factors and economic support in preventing and escaping from intimate partner violence. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32, 122–128. McNulty, J. K., O’Mara, E. M. & Karney, B. R. (2008). Benevolent cognitions as a strategy of relationship maintenance: ‘Don’t sweat the small stuff’ . . . but it is not all small stuff. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 631–646. Mesch, D. J., Brown, M. S., Moore, Z. I. & Hayat, A. D. (2011). Gender differences in charitable giving. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 16, 342–355. Miller, P. J. E., Niehuis, S. & Huston, T. L. (2006). Positive illusions in marital relationships: A 13-year longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1579–1594. Murray, S. L. (1999). The quest for conviction: Motivated cognition in romantic relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 23–34. Murray, S. L. & Holmes, J. G. (1997). A leap of faith? Positive illusions in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 586–604. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G. & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind, but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1155–1180. Myyry, L. & Helkama, K. (2001). University students’ value priorities and emotional empathy. Educational Psychology, 21, 25–40. Rostowski, J. (2009). Selected aspects of the neuropsychology of love. Acta Neuropsychologica, 7, 225–248. Schulz, T. (2004). De verbanden tussen persoonlijkheid, liefdesstijlen, hechtingsstijlen, relatietypen en relatiekwaliteit / The relations between personality, love styles, attachment styles, relationship types and relationship quality. Unpublished manuscript, University of Groningen. Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L. & Toguchi, Y. (2003). Pancultural selfenhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 60–79. Sharpley, C. F. & Cross, D. G. (1982). A psychometric evaluation of the Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 739–747. Sharpley, C. F. & Rogers, J. H. (1984). Preliminary validation of the Abbreviated Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale: Some psychometric data regarding a screening test of marital adjustment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 1045–1049. Silverstein, J. L. (1992). The problem with in-laws. Journal of Family Therapy, 14, 399–412. Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 313–335. Stocks, E., Lishner, D. A. & Decker, S. K. (2009). Altruism or psychological escape: Why does empathy promote prosocial behavior? European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 649–665. Stocks, E. L., Lishner, D. A., Waits, B. L. & Downum, E. M. (2011). I’m embarrassed for you: The effect of valuing and perspective taking on empathic embarrassment and empathic concern. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 1–26. Woltin, K. A., Corneille, O., Yzerbyt, V. Y. & Forster, J. (2011). Narrowing down to open up for other people’s concerns: Empathic concern can be enhanced by inducing detailed processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 418–424. Received 6 January 2014, accepted 22 April 2014
DOI: 10.1111/sjop.12142
Personality and Social Psychology Empathy in intimate relationships: The role of positive illusions PIETERNEL DIJKSTRA,1 DICK P.H. BARELDS,2 HINKE A.K. GROOTHOF3 and MARNIX VAN BRUGGEN4 1
NCOI Business School, The Netherlands University of Groningen, The Netherlands 3 Open University of the Netherlands 4 Remember – Practice for Contextual Therapy and Advice, The Netherlands 2
Dijkstra, P., Barelds, D. P. H., Groothof, H. A. K. & van Bruggen, M. (2014). Empathy in intimate relationships: The role of positive illusions. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 55, 477–482. Previous studies have shown empathy to be an important aspect of a high quality intimate relationship. Likewise, positive illusions about a partner’s characteristics have been shown to contribute to relationship quality. The present study connects these issues by examining the degree to which individuals hold positive illusions about a partner’s level of empathy, and the extent to which these positive illusions are related to relationship quality and adjustment in a sample of 55 couples. Results showed that positive illusions concerning a partner’s level of empathy were only held by women. In addition, people’s evaluation of relationship quality and adjustment was consistently related to both their own and their partner’s positive empathy illusions. Finally, an interaction effect was found between participant sex and the partner effect of positive empathy illusions: the illusions held by the partner (only for men) were related to relationship quality. Results and implications for theory and relationship counseling are discussed. Key words: Positive illusions, empathy, relationship quality. Pieternel Dijkstra, NCOI Business school, Department of Psychology, Marathon 7, Hilversum, The Netherlands. Tel: +31 598380330; e-mail: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION Empathy may be defined as an emotional response of compassion and concern caused by witnessing someone else in need (e.g., Stocks, Lishner, Waits & Downum, 2011; Woltin, Corneille, Yzerbyt & Forster, 2011). Empathy is believed to elicit an approach orientation toward others in need and to facilitate pro-social behavior (e.g., Batson & Shaw, 1991; Stocks, Lishner & Decker, 2009). It has been suggested that empathy reflects the deeply rooted drive of parental nurturance as it evolved in humans to help offspring survive. Were humans not interested in protecting, helping and nurturing their vulnerable young, our species would have become extinct quickly. Throughout history, authors have argued that through cognitive generalization based on learning and experience, empathy is often also felt for adults and animals in need (e.g., Lishner, Batson & Huss, 2011). Empathy also plays an essential role in the development and maintenance of pair bonds (Rostowski, 2009). One of the main reasons for this is that empathy forms a key aspect of emotional support, a strong correlate of relationship satisfaction (Cramer, 2003; Rostowski, 2009). In line with this, Cramer and Jowett (2010), for example, showed that perceived empathy of the partner was related to relationship satisfaction. Studying empathy and the relationship aspects that are related to it therefore seems important. It may help gain more insight into what makes intimate relationships satisfactory and what is needed to help them blossom. In relation to empathy, the present study examines an important relationship phenomenon that previous studies have shown to be related to relationship quality, © 2014 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
that is, positive illusions. More specifically, the present study examined to what extent positive illusions with regard to a partner’s empathy predict relationship quality in a sample of cohabiting and married heterosexual couples from The Netherlands.
POSITIVE ILLUSIONS Several studies have found that individuals often rate their partner overly positive on a number of characteristics, such as kindness, intelligence, and physical attractiveness. This phenomenon has been referred to as positive illusions (e.g., Barelds, Dijkstra, Koudenburg & Swami, 2011; Murray & Holmes, 1997). A positive illusion about a characteristic of the partner can be said to occur when an individual’s ratings of his or her partner on a certain characteristic are more positive than the individual’s partner’s own ratings on the same characteristic (Barelds et al., 2011; Murray, Holmes & Griffin, 1996). For instance, a man can be said to possess a positive illusion about, for instance, his wife’s intelligence, when he rates her as more intelligent than she rates herself. Positive illusions about a partner’s characteristics have been found to predict greater relationship satisfaction, love, commitment, and trust, and less conflict and ambivalence in both dating and marital relationships (e.g., Barelds & Dijkstra, 2009; Murray & Holmes, 1997). The existence of positive illusions is often explained by the fact that individuals usually invest heavily in pair bonds. Even though, in the beginning of the relationship, they hardly see any flaws in their partner and/or their relationship, after a while partners are often confronted with each other’s flaws, sources of negativity or
478 P. Dijkstra et al. conflict. This may raise the fear that their partner might not be the ‘right’ person after all and that all the investments they have made in the relationship may be wasted (e.g., Murray, 1999; Miller, Niehuis & Huston, 2006). In order to resolve these doubts and diminish their fears, individuals often, unconsciously, develop an image of their partner that emphasizes their partner’s virtues and minimizes his or her flaws (e.g., McNulty, O’Mara & Karney, 2008; Murray, Holmes & Griffin, 1996). These positive illusions help partners to regain a sense of security and derogate alternative partners, and help stabilise their long-term bond (Murray, 1999). Despite the essential role of a partner’s empathy in intimate relationships, no studies have explicitly examined the extent to which individuals hold positive illusions about their partner’s levels of empathy and to what extent these illusions are related to relationship quality. Murray and Holmes (1997; see also Murray et al., 1996) examined positive illusions concerning a partner’s interpersonal qualities, which consisted of 21 positive and negative attributes. Of these characteristics some were related to empathy, such as kind and understanding and responsive to my needs, but most were not, such as self-assured, irrational, witty and intelligent. These authors found that, as individuals held stronger positive illusions about their partner’s qualities, they experienced greater satisfaction, love, and trust, and less conflict and ambivalence in their relationship. From this study, however, it remains unclear to what degree perceptions of empathy contributed to these positive illusions and, as a consequence, to what extent positive illusions regarding empathy are related to relationship outcomes. Based on previous research on partner attributes and positive illusions, we expect that individuals hold positive illusions about their partner’s levels of empathy (Hypothesis 1), and that these positive illusions are related positively to relationship quality (Hypothesis 2). Although previous studies seem to point in the direction of our hypotheses, another scenario is also imaginable. At first sight, empathy may be regarded as a natural phenomenon in romantic relationships, because of its relationship to love and caring. However, more than other relationships, such as friendships, the pair bond may also be characterized by a (temporary) lack of empathy. More than in other relationships (for example friendships or the relations with colleagues), intimate relationships form the context of transference or displacement. Displacement refers to the phenomenon that individuals redirect negative emotions, such as anger, evoked by someone else, towards a third party, without regard for that person’s feelings. A husband who is frustrated by, for instance, his in-laws may redirect these feelings towards his wife, by responding to her with anger or annoyance (Silverstein, 1992). In contrast to other relationships, especially the pair bond may be vulnerable to the transference of negative emotions, because it serves as a ‘safe haven’, in which individuals feel they may vent their emotions as they experience them and may even feel they have the right to do so. In more extreme cases, individuals may even physically abuse their partner because of frustrations felt with life outside of the home, such as poverty or unemployment (e.g., Matjasko, Niolon & Valle, 2013). Thus, with regard to empathy, it is not self-evident that partners hold positive illusions about each other. © 2014 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Scand J Psychol 55 (2014)
METHOD Participants and procedure Participants were recruited by both the first, third and fourth authors of this paper, and two student assistants, by means of snowball sampling and advertisements on Facebook. Participants were all involved in a serious intimate relationship were asked to fill in an online survey on empathy. In addition, they were asked if their partner was also willing to fill in the same online survey. If so, the partner could use the same link, or a separate link, that referred to an exact copy of the survey. Participants were asked to fill in the survey alone (without the partner). The survey was started 152 times. A total of 128 individuals completed the whole study. Some participants reported having had problems with their internet connection, and started over (the interrupted trials are included in the number of 152 mentioned above), whereas some individuals quit the study after reading the introduction. This introduction explained the purpose of the study, stressed the anonymity of the data collection and the voluntary nature of the study, and included an informed consent question. For the purpose of the present study, it was important to collect data from couples. The couples could be identified by asking all participants for their own sex and birth date (year, month, and day), as well as their partner’s sex and birth date (year, month, and day). There were no participants with the same date of birth in the present sample. A total of 55 couples could be identified, leaving 110 participants. Of the remaining 18 participants the partner data were missing. The mean age of the final sample of 110 participants was 40.4 (SD = 11.2, range 21–63). The mean length of the relationship was 15.1 years (SD = 11.5, range 5 months to 44 years). The majority of the sample was married (63.6%), 30.9% was cohabiting, and the remaining 5.5% were not married or cohabiting at the time of the study. A total of 55.3% of the final sample reported having children.
Instruments Empathy. Empathy was measured using the six adjectives proposed by Batson, Fultz and Schoenrade (1987). Participants indicated, on sevenpoint scales (1 = not at all, 7 = very much), the extent to which they showed these six emotions (sympathetic, moved, compassionate, tender, warm and soft-hearted) in the contact with their partner. This empathy measure was administered as both a self report, and as a partner report. For the partner report, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which their partner showed these emotions (in the contact with the participant). Cronbach’s alpha for this empathy scale in the present study was 0.90 for the self-ratings and 0.89 for the partner ratings. Because couple data were collected, and both self and partner ratings were collected, there are four empathy scores in total per couple. Figure 1 illustrates these four scores, as well as the definition of positive illusions in the present study. Relationship measures. The present study included two relationship measures. The first was a 20 item abridged version of the Dutch Relationship Questionnaire (DRQ; Barelds, Luteijn & Arrindell, 2003). The DRQ is a multidimensional measure for relationship quality that is intended to measure the most relevant aspects of marital quality (cf. Barelds, 2005; Barelds & Dijkstra, 2009). The DRQ consists of 80 true-false items that are distributed over five subscales: independence, closeness, identity, conflict resolution and sexuality. These subscales can be summed to obtain a total relationship quality score. Examples of items are “My partner and I agree on most things,” and “I am content with our sex life.” The DRQ has been used previously in a study on positive illusions and relationship quality (Barelds & Dijkstra, 2011). For brevity reasons, the present study used an abridged version of the DRQ, consisting of the 20 items with the highest item-remainder correlations in a sample of 332 married or cohabiting participants (Schulz, 2004). The correlation between the full scale and the abridged version in that study was r = 0.89. Correlations between the abridged version of the DRQ and the Interactional
Positive illusions and empathy 479
Scand J Psychol 55 (2014)
Person being rated Ratings made by
Self
Partner
Self
A
B
Partner
C
D
A = self-ratings of empathy; B = ratings of a partner’s empathy; C = self-ratings of empathy made by the partner; D = ratings of a partner’s empathy made by the partner. Positive illusions about a partner’s empathy(Actor effect) are defined as B–C,and Fig. 1. Empathy scores and empathy positive illusions within couples.
positive illusions about a partner’s empathy held by the partner (Partner effect) as D–A.
Problem Solving Inventory (IPSI; Lange, 1983) and the Triangular Love Scale (TLS; Sternberg, 1997) were r = 0.70 and r = 0.68 respectively, which is comparable to previous studies using the full length DRQ (Barelds et al., 2003). The items of the DRQ-20 were answered on a five-point scale in the present study (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha of the DRQ-20 in the present study was 0.91. The second relationship questionnaire was the seven item short form of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976), the DAS-7 (cf. Sharpley & Cross, 1982; Sharpley & Rogers, 1984). The DAS-7 consists of three items referring to dyadic consensus (e.g., with regard to aims, goals, and things believed important), three items referring to dyadic cohesion (e.g., working together on a project), and one general dyadic satisfaction item (i.e., the degree of happiness in the relationship). In the present study, the three cohesion items were answered on a five-point scale (1 = (almost) always disagree, 5 = (almost) always agree), the three consensus items were answered on a six-point scale (1 = never, 6 = more than once a day), and the general satisfaction item was answered on a sevenpoint scale (1 = extremely unhappy, 7 = extremely happy). Cronbach’s alpha in the present study was 0.79, which is highly comparable to previous studies (e.g., Hunsley, Best, Lefebvre & Vito, 2001; Sharpley & Rogers, 1984). The correlation between the DAS-7 and the DRQ-20 in the present study was r = 0.62.
RESULTS We first calculated the correlations between the variables used in the present study at the individual level (men and women combined). Table 1 lists the correlations between the variables as
rated by the self, as well as rated by the partner. There are therefore four empathy scores in Table 1: self-ratings and partner ratings of empathy and self-ratings and partner ratings of empathy as reported by the partner (also see Fig. 1). By definition, at the individual level the means and standard deviations of the ratings made by the partner for these variables are the same as the ratings made by individuals themselves (see Table 1). As expected, there are significant correlations between empathy of both the self and of the partner and relationship quality and adjustment. For empathy of the self, correlations with the DRQ-20 and DAS-7 were r = 0.45 and r = 0.43 respectively for the self-ratings, and r = 0.38 and r = 0.45 for the partner ratings made by the partner ( ps < 0.01). The expected significant correlations between empathy of the partner and relationship quality and adjustment were also found: r = 0.63 and r = 0.47 for the ratings of the partner and r = 0.44 and r = 0.38 respectively for the self-ratings made by the partner ( ps < 0.01). Table 1 also shows support for assortative mating, that is, the phenomenon that individuals tend to select partners who are similar to themselves, with regard to empathy: self-ratings and partner ratings of empathy correlate r = 0.44 ( p < 0.01), whereas self-ratings of both partners correlate r = 0.20 ( p < 0.05), and partner ratings of both partners correlate r = 0.24 ( p < 0.05). The difference between the latter two correlations was not significant (test for dependent correlations; Z = –0.42, p = 0.67).
Table 1. Means, standard deviations and correlations between empathy of self and partner (rated by both self and partner) and relationship outcomes Rated by self
Rated by self Empathy self (A) Empathy partner (B) DRQ–20 DAS–7 Rated by partner Empathy self (C) Empathy partner (D) DRQ–20 DAS–7
M
SD
Empathy self (A)
21.6 21.8 81.1 29.9
4.7 4.4 10.1 4.2
1.00 0.44** 0.45** 0.43**
21.6 21.8 81.1 29.9
4.7 4.4 10.1 4.2
0.20* 0.49** 0.44** 0.38**
Empathy partner (B)
DRQ–20
DAS–7
1.00 0.63** 0.47**
1.00 0.62**
1.00
0.24* 0.38** 0.45**
0.53** 0.42**
0.58**
Notes: DRQ-20 refers to the twenty–item version of the Dutch Relationship Questionnaire, and DAS-7 refers to the seven–item version of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. The letters between brackets (A, B, C, and D) refer to those listed in Fig. 1. At the individual level, the correlations between ratings by the self and ratings by the partner are the same as the correlations between ratings by the partner and ratings by the self (e.g., the correlation between A and D is the same as the correlation between C and B; r = 0.49). * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. © 2014 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
480 P. Dijkstra et al.
Scand J Psychol 55 (2014)
The agreement between partners regarding relationship quality and adjustment is r = 0.53 and r = 0.58 respectively ( ps < 0.01), which is comparable to previous studies (e.g., Barelds, 2005; Barelds & Dijkstra, 2007). Finally, the self-other agreement (that is: to what extent do self-ratings and partner ratings made by the partner correspond?) is r = 0.49 ( p < 0.01; see Table 1).
Positive illusions regarding a partner’s empathy To examine if individuals hold positive illusions regarding the level of empathy of their partner, we calculated the mean partner empathy ratings and compared these to the self-ratings made by the partner, separately for men and women (see Table 2). Results of these analyses showed that the hypothesis that there would be positive illusions regarding a partner’s level of empathy was only confirmed for women. Whereas women appear to have positive illusions regarding their partner’s level of empathy (t = 2.56, p < 0.05), men’s ratings of their partner’s level of empathy are lower than the self-ratings made by their partners, albeit not significant (t = –1.64, p = ns). This could mean that men slightly underestimate their partner’s level of empathy, or that women slightly overestimate their own level of empathy, or both. Although men and women did not differ significantly in their partner ratings of empathy (column-wise comparison in Table 2), they did with regard to self-ratings of empathy (t = 4.13, p < 0.01) and their positive illusions (t = –2.92, p < 0.01), with women reporting more empathy and more positive illusions.
Positive illusions and relationship quality and adjustment Our second hypothesis stated that positive illusions with regard to empathy would be positively related to relationship quality. Even though, on average, we found no indication for positive empathy illusions for men, it might still be that men who do hold positive empathy illusions are involved in better relationships. The relations between positive empathy illusions and relationship quality and adjustment were examined using the Actor Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; e.g., Campbell & Kashy, 2002; Kashy & Kenny, 2000) as a conceptual framework. The APIM treats the couples as the unit of analysis (e.g. Kashy, Campbell & Harris, 2006), and takes into account that scores that two intimate partners provide are interdependent (also see the results in Table 1). We examined the relations between positive illusions concerning empathy (both Actor and Partner effects) and relationship quality and adjustment by means of multilevel modeling (Linear
Table 2. Mean partner ratings of empathy and self-ratings of empathy made by the partner by participant sex
Men Women t p
Partner ratings
Self–rating by the partner
Positive illusion
22.3 (4.1) 21.3 (4.7) 1.18 0.266
23.3 (4.3) 19.9 (4.4) 4.13 0.000
–1.0 (4.7) 1.4 (4.2) –2.92 0.004
t
p
–1.64 2.56
0.107 0.013
© 2014 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Mixed Models in SPSS 19.0; cf. Kenny, 2004). Actor effects refer to the effects of individuals’ own predictor scores on the dependent variables (e.g., the effect of individuals’ positive illusions on their own relationship), and Partner effects to the effects of partners’ predictor scores on the dependent variables (e.g., the effect of the positive illusions held by partners on individuals’ relationships). Dyads were entered as subjects (distinguishable), and subject sex as the repeated measures variable (covariance type Compound Symmetry Heterogeneous; cf. Kenny, 2004). Both partners’ ratings of a partner’s level of empathy, controlled for the other partner’s self-ratings of empathy (see, for example, Murray et al., 1996), were used to estimate Actor and Partner positive illusion effects. The DRQ-20 and the DAS-7 were used separately as dependent variables. Table 3 summarizes the results. Consistent significant Actor and Partner effects of positive empathy illusions were found. Relationship quality and adjustment are rated more positively if a person or his/her partner holds stronger positive illusions with regard to empathy, confirming our second hypothesis. Relationship quality and adjustment are rated more positively if a person or his/her partner holds stronger positive illusions with regard to empathy, confirming our second hypothesis. Because we did find some sex differences with regard to self-rated empathy and positive empathy illusions (see Table 2), we also examined sex differences with regard to these Actor and Partner effects of positive empathy illusions. For this purpose, we computed two interaction terms, by multiplying the predictor variables with the gender of either the Actor (for the Actor variable), or the Partner (for the Partner variable; cf. Campbell & Kashy, 2002). We centered the variables prior to computing the interaction variables (e.g., Campbell & Kashy, 2002). We added the two interaction terms to the model and found a significant Sex 9 Partner positive illusion interaction for the DRQ (b = 1.92, t = 2.58, p < 0.05), but not for the DAS-7 (b = 0.58, t = 1.68, p = 0.10). The Sex 9 Actor interaction effects were not significant (ts between 0.67 and 1.69, ps > 0.095). To further examine the nature of the significant interaction effect, simple slopes were computed (see Fig. 2). It was found that particularly for men, there is a strong effect of a partner’s (absence of) positive empathy illusions on relationship quality: men whose partners hold strong positive empathy illusions report the highest relationship quality, whereas men whose partner has weak (or negative) empathy illusions report the lowest relationship quality. For women, the effect of having a partner with (or without) positive empathy illusions is smaller.
Table 3. Actor and partner effects for the relations between positive empathy illusions and relationship quality and adjustment
DRQ-20 Actor effect Partner effect DAS-7 Actor effect Partner effect
b
t
p
1.42 0.64
6.62 2.98
0.000 0.004
0.41 0.39
4.18 3.93
0.000 0.000
Positive illusions and empathy 481
Scand J Psychol 55 (2014)
88 86 84 82 80 78 76
illusion low
74
illusion high
72 70
Men
Women
Fig. 2. Interaction between participant sex and partner positive empathy illusions for the DRQ.
and Holmes (1997) and Barelds and Dijkstra (2011). The results also show that particularly for men, there is a strong effect of a partner’s (absence of) positive empathy illusions on relationship quality: men whose partners hold strong positive empathy illusions report the highest relationship quality, whereas men whose partner has weak (or negative) empathy illusions report the lowest relationship quality. For women, the effect of having a partner with (or without) positive empathy illusions is smaller. This finding suggests that for both men and women to feel satisfied about their relationship, especially positive illusions of empathy held by women about their partners contribute to relationship quality. It must be noted, however, that this finding was limited to the DRQ-20, and therefore should be interpreted with caution.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
In line with previous studies on empathy, the present study underlines the important role of empathy in intimate relationships: the present study found relatively strong, positive correlations between both partners’ empathy scores and relationship quality and adjustment. As noted before, an important reason for this may be that empathy forms a key aspect of emotional support: when their partner responds with empathy, individuals feel understood and cared for (Cramer, 2003; Rostowski, 2009). The present study expanded previous studies’ results by showing that individuals may also hold positive illusions with regard to a partner’s level of empathy and that these positive illusions are related to relationship quality and adjustment. Our study, however, also showed that holding such positive illusions is not selfevident: in the present study only women held positive illusions about their partner’s degree of empathy, not men. The present study is the first to reveal such a sex difference in positive illusions. Whereas a number of previous studies have shown both partners to hold positive illusions about their partner (e.g., Murray et al., 1996), a recent study by Barelds and Dijkstra (2011) found both sexes did not hold positive illusions about a partner’s personality in terms of the Big Five, although, if these illusions occurred, they were positively related to relationship quality. Our finding that only women, but not men, hold positive illusions about a partner’s degree of empathy may be explained in several ways. The most likely explanation is that women value empathy more than men, and as a result tend to overestimate their own and their partner’s empathy. Several studies indeed show that women more highly value empathy-related values than men, such as principles of care and giving (Mesch, Brown, Moore & Hayat, 2011) and benevolence (Myyry & Helkama, 2001). Since individuals especially tend to enhance their view of themselves and their loved ones on dimensions that are important to them (e.g., Sedikides, Gaertner & Toguchi, 2003), this may explain why women, but not men, foster positive illusions concerning their partner’s empathy. In addition, our study found both an Actor and a Partner effect of positive illusions on relationship quality and adjustment. That is, relationship quality and adjustment are rated more positively if a person or his/her partner holds stronger positive illusions with regard to empathy. These results are consistent with those found by previous studies, such as those by Murray
Our study shows that women hold positive illusions about their partner’s empathy and that these illusions, whether held by men or women, are positively related to perceptions of relationship quality and adjustment, for both partners. These findings emphasize, again, the important role of empathy in intimate relationships. In addition to contributing to a high degree of emotional support in the relationship (Cramer, 2003; Rostowski, 2009), perceptions of how empathic one’s partner is contribute to relationship functioning. As individuals view their partner’s level of empathy more positively than their partner, the relationship is more likely to blossom. For several reasons, these findings may be of practical relevance to relationship counselors. First, to enhance relationship quality, counselors may help men to become more aware and appreciative of their partner’s empathic responses, feeding positive illusions about their partner’s level of empathy and fostering relationship quality. Second, for marriage counselors, a decline in or loss of positive evaluations of a partner’s empathy among women, but not necessarily among men, may be a sign of relationship dysfunctioning or loss of relationship quality. Such a decline may either be caused by lowered satisfaction with the relationship on the part of the woman and/or by an actual decline in a man’s empathic responses. Especially women in relationships with men who, due to, for instance, autism or another psychological disorder, are limited in their ability to respond empathically to their partner, may suffer from low relationship quality. In addition to the low levels of male empathy within the relationship, the relationship may also suffer from the absence of the woman’s positive illusions regarding her husband’s empathy that is the result of the low levels of empathy from the part of her husband. Helping couples regain higher levels of empathy in their relationship may be achieved by, for instance, teaching men to communicate more empathically towards their partner and women to notice and appreciate (again) these empathic responses. In this way, counselors may help couples build a more empathic relationship. Of course our study was limited in several respects. For instance, our sample was relatively small (n = 55 couples). It therefore seems wise to cross-validate our studies’ findings in a larger sample. In addition, it would be interesting to study the role of positive illusions about a partner’s empathy in a sample
© 2014 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
482 P. Dijkstra et al. consisting of distressed couples, since the couples in the present sample had, on average, good relationships. It is very possible that, in relationships that are more dysfunctional, other interpersonal processes are relevant, and positive illusions play a different role than in healthy functioning relationships. The relationship between positive illusions about a partner’s empathy and relationship functioning may also be affected by a difference in cultural background between partners, since the experience and expression of empathy may differ from culture to culture (Hollan, 2012). Studying these topics more closely seems interesting and relevant for both theory and practice.
REFERENCES Barelds, D. P. H. (2005). Self and partner personality in intimate relationships. European Journal of Personality, 19, 501–518. Barelds, D. P. H. & Dijkstra, P. (2007). Relations between different types of jealousy and self and partner perceptions of relationship quality. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 14, 176–188. Barelds, D. P. H. & Dijkstra, P. (2009). Positive illusions about a partner’s physical attractiveness and relationship quality. Personal Relationships, 16, 263–283. Barelds, D. P. H. & Dijkstra, P. (2011). Positive illusions about a partner’s personality and relationship quality. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 37–43. Barelds, D. P. H., Dijkstra, P., Koudenburg, N. & Swami, V. (2011). An assessment of positive illusions of the physical attractiveness of romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 706–719. Barelds, D. P. H., Luteijn, F. & Arrindell, W. A. (2003). Dutch relationship questionnaire: Manual. Amsterdam: Pearson. Barnett, M. A., King, L. M., Howard, J. A. & Dino, G. A. (1980). Empathy in young children: Relation to parents’ empathy, affection, and emphasis on the feelings of others. Developmental Psychology, 16, 243–244. Batson, D. C., Fultz, J. & Schoenrade, P. A. (1987). Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. Journal of Personality, 55, 19–39. Batson, D. C. & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 107–122. Campbell, L. & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A user-friendly guide. Personal Relationships, 9, 327–342. Cramer, D. (2003). Facilitativeness, conflict, demand for approval, self-esteem, and satisfaction with romantic relationships. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 137, 85–98. Cramer, D. & Jowett, S. (2010). Perceived empathy, accurate empathy and relationship satisfaction in heterosexual couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 327–349. Hollan, D. (2012). Emerging issues in the cross-cultural study of empathy. Emotion Review, 4, 70–78. Hunsley, J., Best, M., Lefebvre, M. & Vito, D. (2001). The seven-item short form of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale: Further evidence for construct validity. American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, 325–335. Kashy, D. A., Campbell, L. & Harris, D. W. (2006). Advances in data analytic approaches for relationship research: The broad utility of hierarchical linear modeling. In A. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 73–90). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kashy, D. A. & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 451– 477). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kenny, D. A. (2004). Dyadic analysis. Retrieved February 22, 2007 from http://davidakenny.net/dyad.htm.
© 2014 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Scand J Psychol 55 (2014) Lange, A. (1983). De Interactionele Probleem Oplossings Vragenlijst, IPOV/The Interactional. Problem Solving Inventory, IPSI. Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus. Lishner, D. A., Batson, D. C. & Huss, E. (2011). Tenderness and sympathy: Distinct empathic emotions elicited by different forms of need. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 614–625. Matjasko, J. L., Niolon, P. H. & Valle, L. A. (2013). The role of economic factors and economic support in preventing and escaping from intimate partner violence. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32, 122–128. McNulty, J. K., O’Mara, E. M. & Karney, B. R. (2008). Benevolent cognitions as a strategy of relationship maintenance: ‘Don’t sweat the small stuff’ . . . but it is not all small stuff. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 631–646. Mesch, D. J., Brown, M. S., Moore, Z. I. & Hayat, A. D. (2011). Gender differences in charitable giving. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 16, 342–355. Miller, P. J. E., Niehuis, S. & Huston, T. L. (2006). Positive illusions in marital relationships: A 13-year longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1579–1594. Murray, S. L. (1999). The quest for conviction: Motivated cognition in romantic relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 23–34. Murray, S. L. & Holmes, J. G. (1997). A leap of faith? Positive illusions in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 586–604. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G. & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind, but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1155–1180. Myyry, L. & Helkama, K. (2001). University students’ value priorities and emotional empathy. Educational Psychology, 21, 25–40. Rostowski, J. (2009). Selected aspects of the neuropsychology of love. Acta Neuropsychologica, 7, 225–248. Schulz, T. (2004). De verbanden tussen persoonlijkheid, liefdesstijlen, hechtingsstijlen, relatietypen en relatiekwaliteit / The relations between personality, love styles, attachment styles, relationship types and relationship quality. Unpublished manuscript, University of Groningen. Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L. & Toguchi, Y. (2003). Pancultural selfenhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 60–79. Sharpley, C. F. & Cross, D. G. (1982). A psychometric evaluation of the Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 739–747. Sharpley, C. F. & Rogers, J. H. (1984). Preliminary validation of the Abbreviated Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale: Some psychometric data regarding a screening test of marital adjustment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 1045–1049. Silverstein, J. L. (1992). The problem with in-laws. Journal of Family Therapy, 14, 399–412. Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 313–335. Stocks, E., Lishner, D. A. & Decker, S. K. (2009). Altruism or psychological escape: Why does empathy promote prosocial behavior? European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 649–665. Stocks, E. L., Lishner, D. A., Waits, B. L. & Downum, E. M. (2011). I’m embarrassed for you: The effect of valuing and perspective taking on empathic embarrassment and empathic concern. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 1–26. Woltin, K. A., Corneille, O., Yzerbyt, V. Y. & Forster, J. (2011). Narrowing down to open up for other people’s concerns: Empathic concern can be enhanced by inducing detailed processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 418–424. Received 6 January 2014, accepted 22 April 2014
