Skip to main content
Log in

Seeing bad does good: Relational benefits of accuracy regarding partners’ negative moods

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Motivation and Emotion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When would greater empathic accuracy (EA) be an asset and when would it not? In two studies of romantic couples (both employing daily diaries, the second also involving a lab-based video-recall paradigm), we explored the associations between EA (at the day-level, person-level, and in the lab) and an important relationship outcome: negative relationship feelings. Our results show that accuracy is tied more strongly to this relational outcome when negative (vs. positive) moods are the target of empathic judgments. The association between accuracy and (better) feelings was true for both perceivers and targets. Importantly, these associations emerged only in diary-based accuracy scores, and not in the lab-based ones. These results further support the importance of everyday empathic accuracy. They also highlight the need to consider such accuracy as multi-faceted, and in particular, to recognize the differential role of attending to our partners’ negative versus positive moods in daily life.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Notably, both of these studies departed from the classic video-recall paradigm; Haugen et al. asked both discussants to review the taped conversations and provide close-ended ratings for forty 20-s segments, whereas Cohen et al. solicited particularly upsetting relational events, chose four highly negative and two highly positive 30-s segments, and asked participants to rate their own and their partners’ feelings in these.

  2. Notably, assessing EA towards quantifiable targets’ mental states is possible within the lab by deviating from Ickes’s verbal task. This adaptation of the lab-based EA paradigm has been used by few researchers to date (e.g., Zaki et al. 2008; Overall et al. 2015, study 1).

  3. We ran a similar set of analyses with positive relationship feelings as the outcome. These can be seen in the Online Supplementary Material (https://osf.io/2fdmj).

  4. As can be seen in online supplementary materials (Tables a1–a5), similar results were obtained with models testing positive RFs as the outcome.

  5. Tables 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 present the results with gender coded 1 = female, 0 = male; this implies that the default estimates in the tables are those for men. For this reason, we do not spell out men’s estimates in the text, unless they are adjusted for covariates and therefore differ from those presented in the tables. We do, however, present women’s estimates.

  6. See footnote 5.

  7. See footnote 5.

  8. See footnote 5.

  9. See footnote 3.

  10. See footnote 4.

  11. See footnote 5.

  12. See footnote 5.

  13. See footnote 5.

  14. See footnote 5.

  15. See footnote 5.

  16. In Study 1, women’s person-level accuracy (regarding both positive and negative moods) had several benefits; in contrast, men’s person-level accuracy proved more of a mixed blessing, at times being associated with poorer relationship outcomes. None of these associations were replicated in Study 2.

  17. See footnote 16.

References

  • Bar-Kalifa, E., & Rafaeli, E. (2013). Disappointment’s sting is greater than help’s balm: Quasi-signal detection of daily support matching. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 956–967. doi:10.1037/a0034905.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, D. J., Feldman-Barrett, L. (2000). The experience-sampling program (ESP). http://www2.bc.edu/∼barretli/esp/.

  • Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989). The Relationship Closeness Inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 792–807. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. L., Nesse, R., Vinokur, A. D., & Smith, D. M. (2003). Providing support may be more beneficial than receiving it: Results from a prospective study of mortality. Psychological Science, 14, 320–327. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.14461.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Caprariello, P. A., & Reis, H. T. (2011). Perceived partner responsiveness minimizes defensive reactions to failure. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 365–372. doi:10.1177/1948550610391914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S., Schulz, M. S., Weiss, E., & Waldinger, R. J. (2012). Eye of the beholder: the individual and dyadic contributions of empathic accuracy and perceived empathic effort to relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 236–245. doi:10.1037/a0027488.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cornwell, J. F., Franks, B., & Higgins, E. T. (2014). Truth, control, and value motivations: the “what,”“how,” and “why” of approach and avoidance. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience. doi:10.3389/fnsys.2014.00194.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cranford, J. A., Shrout, P. E., Iida, M., Rafaeli, E., Yip, T., & Bolger, N. (2006). A procedure for evaluating sensitivity to within-person change: can mood measures in diary studies detect change reliably? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 917–929. doi:10.1177/0146167206287721.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.122.1.5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64, 644–658. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.644.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Finkenauer, C., & Righetti, F. (2011). Understanding in close relationships: An interpersonal approach. European Review of Social Psychology, 22, 316–363. doi:10.1080/10463283.2011.633384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2008). Social functions of emotion. In M. Lewis, J. Haviland, & L. Feldman Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotion (3rd ed., pp. 456–469). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, G. J. O., & Kerr, P. S. G. (2010). Through the eyes of love: Reality and illusion in intimate relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 627–658. doi:10.1037/a0019792.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gable, S. L., Gonzaga, G. C., & Strachman, A. (2006). Will you be there for me when things go right? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 904–917. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.904.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gable, S. L., & Reis, H. T. (2010). Good news! Capitalizing on positive events in an interpersonal context. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 195–257. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(10)42004-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gadassi, R., Bar-Nahum, L. E., Newhouse, S., Anderson, R., Heiman, J. R., Rafaeli, E., & Janssen, E. (2016). Perceived partner responsiveness mediates the association between sexual and marital satisfaction: A daily diary study in newlywed couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1–12. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0448-2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadassi, R., Mor, N., & Rafaeli, E. (2011). Depression and empathic accuracy in couples an interpersonal model of gender differences in depression. Psychological Science, 22, 1033–1041. doi:10.1177/0956797611414728.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gaelick, L., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Wyer, R. S. (1985). Emotional communication in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1246–1265. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.5.1246.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gleason, M. E. J., Iida, M., Bolger, N., & Shrout, P. (2003). Daily supportive equity in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1036–1045. doi:10.1177/0146167203253473.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, A. M., & Chen, S. (2016). Do you get where I’m coming from? Perceived understanding buffers against the negative impact of conflict on relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. doi:10.1037/pspi0000039.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottman, J. (1994a). Why marriages fail. The Family Therapy Networker, 35, 41–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottman, J. (1994b). What predicts divorce? Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. J. (1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 57, 47–52. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.57.1.47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haugen, P. T., Welsh, D. P., & McNulty, J. K. (2008). Empathic accuracy and adolescent romantic relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 709–727. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.03.003.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Howland, M., & Rafaeli, E. (2010). Bringing everyday mind reading into everyday life: Assessing empathic accuracy with daily diary data. Journal of Personality, 78, 1437–1468. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00657.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ickes, W. (Ed.). (1997). Empathic accuracy. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ickes, W. (2003). Everyday mind reading. New York: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ickes, W., Gesn, P. R., & Graham, T. (2000). Gender differences in empathic accuracy: Differential ability or differential motivation? Personal Relationships, 7, 95–109. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00006.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ickes, W., & Hodges, S. D. (2013). Empathic accuracy in close relationships. In L. Campbell & J. Simpson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 348–373). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ickes, W., & Simpson, J. A. (1997). Managing empathic accuracy in close relationships. In W. J. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic accuracy (pp. 218–250). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ickes, W., & Simpson, J. A. (2001). Motivational aspects of empathic accuracy. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 229–249). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ickes, W., Stinson, L., Bissonnette, V., & Garcia, S. (1990). Naturalistic social cognition: Empathic accuracy in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 730–742. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick, S. D., Bissonnette, V. L., & Rusbult, C. E. (2002). Empathic accuracy and accommodative behavior among newly married couples. Personal Relationships, 9, 369–393. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.09402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, R. W., & Ruef, A. M. (1992). Empathy: A physiological substrate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 234–246. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maisel, N. C., & Gable, S. L. (2009). The paradox of received social support: The importance of responsiveness. Psychological Science, 20, 928–932. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02388.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maneta, E. K., Cohen, S., Schulz, M. S., & Waldinger, R. J. (2015). Linkages between childhood emotional abuse and marital satisfaction: The mediating role of empathic accuracy for hostile emotions. Child Abuse & Neglect, 44, 8–17. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.07.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. F. (1971). Profile of mood states. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 641–666. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.641.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., & Fillo, J. (2015). Attachment insecurity, biased perceptions of romantic partners’ negative emotions, and hostile relationship behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 730–749. doi:10.1037/a0038987.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Papp, L. M., Kouros, C. D., & Cummings, E. M. (2010). Emotions in marital conflict interactions: Empathic accuracy, assumed similarity, and the moderating context of depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 367–387. doi:10.1177/0265407509348810.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rafaeli, E., Cranford, J. A., Green, A. S., Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2008). The good and bad of relationships: How social hindrance and social support affect relationship feelings in daily life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1703–1718. doi:10.1177/0146167208323742.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ragsdale, J. D. (1996). Gender, satisfaction level, and the use of relational maintenance strategies in marriage. Communications Monographs, 63, 354–369. doi:10.1080/03637759609376399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauers, A., Blanke, E., & Riediger, M. (2013). Everyday empathic accuracy in younger and older couples: Do you need to see your partner to know his or her feelings? Psychological Science, 24, 2210–2217. doi:10.1177/0956797613490747.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reis, H. T. (2014). Responsiveness: Affective interdependence in close relationships. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Mechanisms of social connection: From brain to group (pp. 255–271). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reis, H. T., & Clark, M. S. (2013). Responsiveness. In L. Campbell & J. Simpson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 400–423). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sened, H., Lavidor, M., Lazarus, G., Bar-Kalifa, E., & Rafaeli, E. (2017). Couples empathic accuracy and relationship satisfaction: A meta analytic review. Journal of Family Psychology (in press).

  • Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2011). The neural bases for empathy. The Neuroscientist, 17, 18–24. doi:10.1177/1073858410379268.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., Ickes, W., & Blackstone, T. (1995). When the head protects the heart: Empathic accuracy in dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 629–641. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., Ickes, W., & Grich, J. (1999). When accuracy hurts: Reactions of anxious–ambivalent dating partners to a relationship-threatening situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 754–769. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., Oriña, M. M., & Ickes, W. (2003). When accuracy hurts, and when it helps: A test of the empathic accuracy model in marital interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 881–893. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.881.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Swann, W. B., Jr., Chang-Schneider, C., & Angulo, S. (2007). Self-verification in relationships as an adaptive process. In J. Wood, A. Tesser & J. Holmes (Eds.), Self and relationships (pp. 49–72). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. E. (2006). Tend and befriend biobehavioral bases of affiliation under stress. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 273–277. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00451.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G., Fletcher, G. J., & Lange, C. (1997). On-line empathic accuracy in marital interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 839–850. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.4.839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (2003). Mind-reading accuracy in intimate relationship: Assessing the roles of the relationship, the target, and the judge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1079–1094. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1079.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vaish, A., Grossmann, T., & Woodward, A. (2008). Not all emotions are created equal: the negativity bias in social-emotional development. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 383–403. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.383.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Verhofstadt, L., Devoldre, I., Buysse, A., Stevens, M., Hinnekens, C., Ickes, W., & Davis, M. (2016). The role of cognitive and affective empathy in spouses’ support interactions: An observational study. PLoS ONE, 11, e0149944. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149944.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Verhofstadt, L. L., Buysse, A., Ickes, W., Davis, M., & Devoldre, I. (2008). Support provision in marriage: The role of emotional similarity and empathic accuracy. Emotion, 8, 792–802. doi:10.1037/a0013976.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 219–235.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • West, T. V., Popp, D., & Kenny, D. A. (2008). A guide for the estimation of gender and sexual orientation effects in dyadic data: An actor-partner interdependence model approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 321–336. doi:10.1177/0146167207311199.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm, P., & Perrez, M. (2004). How is my partner feeling in different daily-life settings? Accuracy of spouses’ judgements about their partner’s feelings at work and at home. Social Indicators Research, 67, 183–246. doi:10.1023/B:SOCI.0000007339.48649.20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winczewski, L.A., Bowen, J.D. & Collins, N.L. (2016) Is empathic accuracy enough to facilitate responsive behavior in dyadic interaction? distinguishing ability from motivation. Psychological Science. doi:10.1177/0956797615624491 (advance online publication)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wonder, S., & Wright, S. (1972). To know you is to love you (Recorded by S. Wonder & S. Wright). On Syreeta [Album]. Detroit, MI: Motown Records.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaki, J., Bolger, N., & Ochsner, K. (2008). It takes two the interpersonal nature of empathic accuracy. Psychological Science, 19, 399–404. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02099.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zaki, J., & Ochsner, K. (2011). Reintegrating the study of accuracy into social cognition research. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 159–182. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2011.551743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by internal funding from Barnard College, Columbia University, provided by the first author. This study did not receive external funding. GL is grateful to the Azrieli Foundation for the award of an Azrieli Fellowship supporting his work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eshkol Rafaeli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rafaeli, E., Gadassi, R., Howland, M. et al. Seeing bad does good: Relational benefits of accuracy regarding partners’ negative moods. Motiv Emot 41, 353–369 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9614-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9614-x

Keywords

Navigation