Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 60, Issue 5–6, pp 387–398 | Cite as

Gender Roles and Empathic Accuracy: The Role of Communion in Reading Minds

  • Sean M. Laurent
  • Sara D. Hodges
Original Article

Abstract

Although empathic accuracy is considered a stable skill, few individual difference measures consistently predict performance on Ickes’ (e.g., 2001) empathic accuracy measure. Because past work has shown that women are more empathically accurate than men when female gender roles are made salient before an empathic accuracy task, we hypothesized that self-reported communion and related variables might predict empathic accuracy. Participants (194 undergraduates) from a northwestern U.S. university completed an empathic accuracy task and self-report measures of communion and empathy. Communion and empathic concern predicted greater empathic accuracy, but only after controlling for socially desirable responding. The role of communion in empathic inference is discussed, along with the need to include measures of social desirability when examining correlates of empathic accuracy.

Keywords

Gender roles Communion Empathic accuracy Empathy Social desirability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Jennifer Freyd, Adam Kramer, Karyn Lewis, John Myers, Mike Myers, Rebecca Neel, and Gerard Saucier for their insightful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. We would also like to thank Tim Mathews for serving as the experimenter and Carlie Ashcraft, Mary D’Anna, John Meyers, Rebecca Neel, Carissa Sharp, and Liana Vega for their help in coding.

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buysse, A., & Ickes, W. (1999). Topic-relevant cognition and empathic accuracy in laboratory discussions of safer sex. Psychology & Health, 14, 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Constantine, M. G. (2000). Social desirability attitudes, sex, and affective and cognitive empathy as predictors of self-reported multicultural counseling competence. The Counseling Psychologist, 28, 857–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Curwen, T. (2003). The importance of offense characteristics, victimization history, hostility, and social desirability in assessing empathy of male adolescent sex offenders. Sexual Abuse, 15, 347–364.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, M. H., & Kraus, L. A. (1997). Personality and empathic accuracy. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic accuracy (pp. 144–168). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  10. Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foushee, H. C., Helmreich, R. L., & Spence, J. T. (1979). Implicit theories of masculinity and femininity: dualistic or bipolar? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 3, 259–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gesn, P. R., & Ickes, W. (1999). The development of meaning contexts for empathic accuracy: channel and sequence effects.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 746–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graham, T., & Ickes, W. (1997). When women’s intuition isn’t greater than men’s. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic accuracy (pp. 117–143). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  14. Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 845–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall, J. A., & Halberstadt, A. G. (1980). Masculinity and femininity in children: development of the children’s Personal Attributes Questionnaire. Developmental Psychology, 16, 270–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hall, J. A., & Schmid Mast, M. (2007). Sources of accuracy in the empathic accuracy paradigm. Emotion (Washington, D.C.), 7, 438–446.Google Scholar
  17. Helgeson, V. S. (1993). Implications of agency and communion for patient and spouse adjustment to a first coronary event. Added. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 807–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to well-being: evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hodges, S. D., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2007). Balancing the empathy expense account: strategies for regulating empathic response. In T. Farrow, & P. Woodruff (Eds.), Empathy in mental illness (pp. 389–407). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hodges, S. D., & Wegner, D. M. (1997). Automatic and controlled empathy. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic Accuracy (pp. 311–339). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  21. Horgan, T. G., & Smith, J. L. (2006). Interpersonal reasons for interpersonal perceptions: gender-incongruent purpose goals and nonverbal judgment accuracy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30, 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ickes, W. (1997). Introduction. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic Accuracy (pp. 1–16). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ickes, W. (2001). Measuring empathic accuracy. In J. Hall, & F. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: theory, measurement and applications (pp. 219–241). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Ickes, W., Bissonnette, V., Garcia, S., & Stinson, L. L. (1990a). Implementing and using the dyadic interaction paradigm. In C. Hendrick, & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology: vol. 11. Research methods in personality and social psychology (pp. 16–44). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Ickes, W., Stinson, L., Bissonnette, V., & Garcia, S. (1990b). Naturalistic social cognition: empathic accuracy in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 730–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ickes, W., Buysse, A., Pham, H., Rivers, K., Erickson, J. R., Hancock, M., et al. (2000a). On the difficulty of distinguishing ‘good’ and ‘poor’ perceivers: a social relations analysis of empathic accuracy data. Personal Relationships, 7, 219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ickes, W., Gesn, P. R., & Graham, T. (2000b). Gender differences in empathic accuracy: differential ability or differential motivation? Personal Relationships, 7, 219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jaccard, J., & Turrisi, R. (2003). Interaction effects in multiple regression (2nd ed.). Sage University Papers Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-072. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. John, O. P., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Measurement: reliability, construct validation, and scale construction. In H. T. Reis, & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality and social psychology (pp. 339–369). New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koenig, A. M., & Eagly, A. H. (2005). Stereotype threat in men on a test of social sensitivity. Sex Roles, 52, 489–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee, A. G. (1982). Psychological androgyny and social desirability. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 147–152.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lönnqvist, J. E., Verkasalo, M., & Bezmenova, I. (2007). Agentic and communal bias in socially desirable responding. European Journal of Personality, 21, 853–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marsh, H. W., Antill, J. K., & Cunningham, J. D. (1987). Masculinity, femininity, and androgyny: relations to self-esteem and social desirability. Journal of Personality, 55, 661–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marsh, H. W., Antill, J. K., & Cunningham, J. D. (1989). Masculinity and femininity: a bipolar construct and independent constructs. Journal of Personality, 57, 625–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McClure, E. B. (2000). A meta-analytic review of sex differences in facial expression processing and their development in infants, children, and adolescents. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 424–453.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miville, M. L., Gelso, C. J., Pannu, R., Liu, W., Touradji, P., Holloway, P., et al. (1999). Appreciating similarities and valuing differences: the Miville–Guzman universality-diversity scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Myers, M. W., & Hodges, S. D.(in press). Making it up and making do: simulation, imagination and empathic accuracy. To appear in K. Markman, W. Klein, & J. Suhr (Eds.), The handbook of imagination and mental simulation. New York: Psychology.Google Scholar
  40. Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know—and sometimes misjudge—what others know: imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 737–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  43. Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: the evolution of a construct. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49–69). Mahwah, NJ, US: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. H. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: explanation and prediction, 3 rd Ed. London: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  46. Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: the contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schenk, J., & Heinsch, R. (1986). Self-descriptions by means of sex-role scales and personality scales: a critical evaluation of recent masculinity and femininity scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Skoe, E. E., Cumberland, A., Eisenberg, N., Hansen, K., & Perry, J. (2002). The influences of sex and gender-role identity on moral cognition and prosocial personality traits. Sex Roles, 46, 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Spence, J. T. (1984). Masculinity, femininity, and gender-related traits: a conceptual analysis and critique of current research. In B. A. Maher, & W. Maher (Eds.), Progress in experimental research (vol. Vol. 13, (pp. 2–97)). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  50. Spence, J. T. (1991). Do the BSRI and PAQ measure the same or different concepts? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 141–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: evidence for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 624–635.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. E. (2000). Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes: what do they signify? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 44–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  54. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1974). The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: a measure of sex role stereotypes and masculinity–femininity. JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 43–44 (Ms. No. 617).Google Scholar
  55. Stinson, L., & Ickes, W. (1992). Empathic accuracy in the interaction of male friends versus male strangers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 787–797.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Taylor, D. (1981). Social desirability and the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Psychological Reports, 48, 503–506.Google Scholar
  57. Thomas, G., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (2003). Mind-reading accuracy in intimate relationships: assessing the relationship of the relationship, the target, and the judge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1079–1094.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zaki, J., Bolger, N., & Ochsner, K. (2008). It takes two: the interpersonal nature of empathic accuracy. Psychological Science, 19, 399–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations