Effects of Couple’s 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 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

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 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 , 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 in a stressful situation behaviorally, supplementing the self-report questionnaire.

For behavioral empathy, the relation between individual’s self-report 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

iii 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.

iv Introduction

Researchers have found gender differences in empathy, with women tending to show greater emotional responsivity towards others’ (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 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 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

1 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.

2 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

3 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- could be induced by viewing another’s negative emotion promotes personal distress, which is self-focused, and thus a to alleviate themselves instead of others. Some studies suggest that depression is associated with 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

4 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, , 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).

5 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 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.

6 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

7 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 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

8 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 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

9 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

10 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.

11 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.

12 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.

13 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,

14 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

15 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

16 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

17 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.

18 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).

19

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 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

20 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.

21 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

22 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.

23 References

Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning , 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 . 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

24 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 . 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

25 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 : 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

26

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 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). , 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

27 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 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 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 . 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

28 Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of Measures for Males and Females General Female Male t test, p value M M M (SD) (SD) (SD) Behavioral Empathy 1.16 0.93 1.39 ns (4.58) (4.31) (4.89) Personal Distress 11.66 13.36 9.97 t(64)=2.97, (4.90) (5.02) (4.21) p=.004 Empathy Empathic Concern 22.81 22.90 22.72 ns (3.82) (3.36) (4.28) Perspective Taking 16.75 15.51 18.00 t(64)=-2.92, (3.64) (3.40) (3.49) p=.005 Adult Romantic Attachment Anxiety 54.03 56.87 51.18 ns (18.91) (16.77) (20.71) Avoidance 43.86 44.51 43.21 ns (13.87) (13.24) (14.66) Relationship Satisfaction 38.77 38.03 39.51 ns (5.14) (5.34) (4.89) Gender Role Masculinity 4.83 4.64 5.01 t(64)=-2.09, (0.74) (0.65) (0.78) p=.041 Femininity 5.00 5.10 4.89 ns (0.56) (0.60) (0.51) Depression 10.80 11.75 9.84 ns (7.08) (8.38) (5.46) Trait Anxiety 41.43 44.09 38.78 t(64)=2.28, (9.74) (9.49) (8.91) p=.026 Word Counting Cognitive words 14.31 16.75 11.86 t(64)=2.25, (9.06) (9.35) (8.19) p=.027 Affective words 16.30 15.61 16.99 ns (10.76) (8.73) (12.57) Positive words 10.77 10.65 10.88 ns (10.11) (8.75) (11.44) Negative words 5.38 4.95 5.82 ns (7.44) (5.19) (9.23) Anxious words 2.68 2.84 2.52 ns (4.62) (4.89) (4.41) Angry words 0.40 0.54 0.25 ns (1.64) (2.01) (1.19) Sad words 0.46 0.54 0.39 ns (1.60) (1.75) (1.45)

29 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).

30 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).

31 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).

32 Table 5 Correlation Table for Partner Effect Behavioral Personal Empathic Perspective Attachment Attachment Relationship Empathy Distress Concern Taking Anxiety Avoidance 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**

33 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).

34 Table 6 APIM– effects of empathy on relationship satisfaction 95% Parameter Estimate Std. Error df t Sig. Interval Lower Upper Bound 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.

35

Figure 1. APIM – effects of empathy on relationship satisfaction

a1 Relationship Empathy satisfaction b1

b2

Partner's Partner's Empathy a2 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.

36 Figure 2. Effects of empathy on relationship satisfaction – Masculinity as a Moderator

Masculinity

Relationship Empathy satisfaction

Partner's Empathy

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.

37

Figure 3. Relation between empathic concern and relationship satisfaction – attachment avoidance as mediator

Attachment avoidance Β=-1.57*** Β=-.13** se=.40 se=.04

Empathic Relationship concern Β=.45** se=.15 satisfaction (Β=.66*** se=.14)

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.

38

Figure 4. Relation between empathic concern and relationship satisfaction – attachment anxiety as mediator

Partner’s attachment anxiety Β=-.12*** Β=-1.60** se=.02 se=.58

Empathic Relationship concern Β=.46** se=.13 satisfaction

(Β=.66*** se=.14)

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.

39 Figure 5. Effects of empathy on relationship satisfaction – Moderated mediation model

Masculinity

Attachment

Empathic Relationship concern satisfaction

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.

40 Figure 6. Relation between empathic concern and relationship satisfaction – moderated mediation model

Β=-.23 se=2.03

Β=1.32** Attachment avoidance se=.49 Β=-.13** se=.04 Β=-1.68*** se=.39 Empathic Relationship concern satisfaction Β=.45** se=.15 (Β=.66*** se=.14)

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.

41