Abstract
The current study sought to expand upon research on motivated empathic (in)accuracy by testing assumptions underlying the empathic accuracy model, namely if a perceiver’s level of empathic accuracy is variable and might be associated with different outcomes depending the situation. More specifically, the model assumes that (a) the perception of threat in the thoughts/feelings of an interaction partner can result in a lower level of empathic accuracy, and (b) empathic accuracy can both improve and harm situational well-being on the personal and relationship level. These assumptions were tested in a laboratory-based study in which couples participated in a conflict interaction task and reported on their thought processes during a video-review task. All participants also completed a similar standard-stimulus task. A shift in participants’ motivation to be accurate to a motivation to be inaccurate in response to perceived threat could not be detected. Men’s higher levels of empathic accuracy for non-threatening feelings of their female partner were predictive of an increased feeling of closeness in men. Women’s higher levels of empathic accuracy for non-threatening feelings of the male partner were predictive for a better mood in women. A harmful effect of empathic accuracy for threatening thoughts/feelings on situational well-being was not found.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This term has been used instead of motivation-based empathic accuracy as some caution is recommended when using the term motivation. Although, the factors described in the model that affect the level of accuracy are defined as ‘motives’ (Ickes 2011), the assumptions stemming from the model are predominantly intuitive (because to date there has been little empirical verification of the full model) and the designated underlying motives only allow for implicit measurement. Furthermore, motivation is not merely a quantitative construct as some authors have stated that the quality or type of motivation is also important when drawing conclusions about the influence of motivation (Ryan and Deci 2000; Vansteenkiste et al. 2006), but these aspects of motivation are not included in the present study.
“Non-threatening” versus “threatening” interactions are defined by “the degree to which the perceiver feels [not threatened versus] highly threatened by the consequences that would likely result from accurately inferring the partner’s thoughts/feelings” (Ickes and Simpson 1997, p. 235).
The theoretical range of this percentage-correct accuracy measure was 0 (none of the possible accuracy points was earned) to 100 (all of the possible accuracy points were earned).
All models fitted well (all CFI > 0.95, all RMSEA < 0.05 and all SRMR < 0.08), as well as the moderation models presented in the following section.
References
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596.
Barone, D. F., Hutchings, P. S., Kimmel, H. J., Traub, H. L., Cooper, J. T., & Marshall, C. M. (2005). Increasing empathic accuracy through practice and feedback in a clinical interviewing course. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 156–171. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.24.2.156.62275.
Birchler, G. R. (1979). Communication skills in married couples. In A. S. Bellack & J. M. Hersen (Eds.), Research and practice in social skills training. New York: Plenum Press.
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.122.1.5.
Drigotas, S. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1992). Should I stay or should I go? A dependence model of breakups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 62–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.1.62.
Fine, M. A., & Harvey, J. H. (2013). Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution. New York: Routledge.
Fletcher, G. J. O., & Thomas, G. (2000). Behavior and on-line cognition in marital interaction. Personal Relationships, 7, 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00007.x.
Flury, J. M., & Ickes, W. (2007). Having a weak versus strong sense of self: The Sense of Self Scale (SOSS). Self and Identity, 6, 281–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860601033208.
Gilbert, S. J. (1976). Self-disclosure, intimacy and communication in families. The Family Coordinator, 25, 221–231. https://doi.org/10.2307/582335.
Gordon, A. M., & Chen, S. (2015). 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, 110, 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000039.
Hinnekens, C., Ickes, W., De Schryver, M., & Verhofstadt, L. L. (2016a). Demand behavior and empathic accuracy in observed conflict interactions in couples. The Journal of Social Psychology, 156, 437–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2015.1115386.
Hinnekens, C., Vanhee, G., De Schryver, M., Ickes, W., & Verhofstadt, L. L. (2016b). Empathic accuracy and observed demand behavior in couples. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1370. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01370.
Hodges, S. D., Lewis, K. L., & Ickes, W. (2015). The matter of other minds: Empathic accuracy and the factors that influence it. In P. Shaver & M. Mikulincer (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology (Vol 2.): Interpersonal relations and group processes. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ickes, W. (1993). Empathic accuracy. Journal of Personality, 61, 587–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00783.x.
Ickes, W. (2011). Everyday mind reading is driven by motives and goals. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 200–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2011.561133.
Ickes, W., Buysse, A., Pham, H., Rivers, K., Erickson, J. R., Hancock, M., … Gesn, P. R. (2000). On the difficulty of distinguishing “good” and “poor” perceivers: A social relations analysis of empathic accuracy data. Personal Relationships, 7, 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00013.x.
Ickes, W., & Cheng, W. (2011). How do thoughts differ from feelings? Putting the differences into words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690961003603046.
Ickes, W., & Simpson, J. A. (1997). Managing empathic accuracy in close relationships. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic accuracy (pp. 218–250). New York: Guilford Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.730.
Kagan, N. (1977). Interpersonal process recall. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
Kilpatrick, S. D., Bissonnette, V. L., & Rusbult, C. E. (2002). Empathic accuracy and accommodative behavior among newly married couples. Personal Relationships, 9, 369–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.09402.
Klein, K. J. K., & Hodges, S. D. (2001). Gender differences, motivation and empathic accuracy: When it pays to understand. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 720–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201276007.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480.
Kurdek, L. A. (1994). Areas of conflict for gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples: What couples argue about influences relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56, 923–934. https://doi.org/10.2307/353603.
Marangoni, C., Garcia, S., Ickes, W., & Teng, G. (1995). Empathic accuracy in a clinically relevant setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 854–869. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.854.
Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., & Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family Process, 18, 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1979.00003.x.
Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. (2004). Getting a cue: The need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1095–1107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262085.
Pollmann, M. H. M., & Finkenauer, C. (2009). Investigating the role of two types of understanding in relationship well-being: Understanding is more important than knowledge. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1512–1527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209342754.
Rusbult, C. E., Johnson, D. J., & Morrow, G. D. (1986). Predicting satisfaction and commitment in adult romantic involvements: An assessment of the generalizability of the investment model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 49, 81–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786859.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
Sened, H., Lavidor, M., Lazarus, G., Bar-Kalifa, E., Rafaeli, E., & Ickes, W. (2017). Empathic accuracy and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Psychology, 31, 742–752. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000320.
Sillars, A., Roberts, L. J., Leonard, K. E., & Dun, T. (2000). Cognition during marital conflict: The relationship of thought and talk. Journal of Social and Personal relationships, 17, 479–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407500174002.
Sillars, A. L. (1985). Interpersonal perception in relationships. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 277–305). New York: Springer.
Sillars, A. L., Pike, G. R., Jones, T. S., & Redmon, K. (1983). Communication and conflict in marriage. Annals of the International Communication Association, 7, 414–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1983.11678545.
Sillars, A. L., & Scott, M. D. (1983). Interpersonal perception between intimates: An integrative review. Human Communication Research, 10, 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1983.tb00009.x.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.629.
Simpson, J. A., Kim, J. S., Fillo, J., Ickes, W., Rholes, S., Oriña, M. M., & Winterheld, H. A. (2011). Attachment and the management of empathic accuracy in relationship threatening situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210394368.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.881.
Swann, W. B. Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In J. Suls & B. Mullen (Eds.), Social psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 33–66). Hillsdales: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Thomas, G., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (2003). Mind-reading accuracy in intimate relationships: Assessing the roles of the relationship, the target, and the judge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1079–1094. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1079.
Thomas, G., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Lange, C. (1997). On-line empathic accuracy in marital interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 839–850. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.4.839.
Thomas, G., & Maio, G. R. (2008). Man, I feel like a woman: When and how gender-role motivation helps mind-reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1165–1179. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013067.
Van Lange, P. A., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., Arriaga, X. B., Witcher, B. S., & Cox, C. L. (1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1373–1395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1373.
Vanhee, G., Lemmens, G., Stas, L., Loeys, T., & Verhofstadt, L. (2016). Why are couples fighting? A need frustration perspective on relationship conflict and dissatisfaction. Journal of Family Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12126.
Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-determination theory and the explanatory role of psychological needs in human well-being. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149944.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013976.
Verhofstadt, L. L., Buysse, A., Ickes, W., De Clercq, A., & Peene, O. J. (2005). Conflict and support interactions in marriage: An analysis of couples’ interactive behavior and on-line cognition. Personal Relationships, 12, 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00100.x.
Weiss, R. L. (1980). Strategic behavior marital therapy: Towards a model for assessment and intervention. In J. P. Vincent (Ed.), Advances in family intervention, assessment and theory (pp. 229–271). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Funding
This study was funded by Research Foundation - Flanders, Grant Number: 11Q9516N (first author).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that he/she has 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 (written) was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hinnekens, C., Loeys, T., De Schryver, M. et al. The manageability of empathic (in)accuracy during couples’ conflict: Relationship-protection or self-protection?. Motiv Emot 42, 403–418 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9689-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9689-z