Upload
alexandra-torres-de-la-hoz
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/17/2019 Empatía en Parejas
1/9
Understanding the One You Love: A Longitudinal Assessment of an Empathy Training
Program for Couples in Romantic Relationships
Author(s): Edgar C. J. Long, Jeffrey J. Angera, Sara Jacobs Carter, Mindy Nakamoto and
Michelle Kalso
Source: Family Relations, Vol. 48, No. 3 (Jul., 1999), pp. 235-242Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/585632
Accessed: 05-04-2016 01:50 UTC
R F R N S
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/585632?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
National Council on Family Relations, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Family Relations
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Tue, 05 Apr 2016 01:50:21 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
8/17/2019 Empatía en Parejas
2/9
Understanding the One You Love:
A Longitudinal Assessment of an Empathy Training Program
for Couples in Romantic Relationships*
Edgar C. J. Long,** Jeffrey J. Angera, Sara Jacobs Carter, Mindy Nakamoto, & Michelle Kalso
Forty-eight couples in romantic relationships volunteered to participate in a 10-hour empathy training program. The five ses-
sions of the program were briefly described and empirical support was given for each component of the training. Couples were
randomly assigned to either a treatment or wait listed comparison group. Both groups completed the five-week training program
at different times. The change in empathy was assessed by several repeated measures analyses of variance. Scores on three em-
pathy measures improved in both groups over the six month period. A change in the perceptions of a partner's empathy at six
months was positively related to relationship satisfaction at the six month follow-up.
T he marital and premarital literature presently demonstrate
that partner empathy is an important characteristic of a well-
adjusted, stable relationship (Davis & Oathout, 1987; Fran-
zoi, Davis, & Young, 1985; Long, 1990; 1993a, 1993b; Long &
Andrews, 1990). Empathy (perspective taking and empathy will be
used synonymously within the body of this paper), has been defined
as the ability to understand what the other is thinking, put oneself in
the other's place, and intellectually understand another's condition
without vicariously experiencing their emotions (Hogan, 1969).
This line of research clearly indicates that empathy, understanding
the point of view of one's partner, is an important predictor of mari-
tal adjustment and a propensity to divorce for both husbands and
wives (Long, 1993a, 1993b; Long & Andrews, 1990). Individuals
are more likely to have stable, well-adjusted relationships if they
have partners who are capable of expressing empathy. As a result of
this line of research, some marriage therapists have argued for the
need of empathy training for couples in romantic relationships
(Bagarozzi & Anderson, 1989; Long, 1993a, 1993b).
Empathy training programs have been developed for a diver-
sity of groups including: high school and college students (Hatcher
et al., 1994), medical students (Patore, 1995), nursing staff (Herbek
& Yammarion, 1990), and parents (Brems, Baldwin, & Baxter,
1993). However, the authors are aware of no published programs
that have a sole focus on an increased expression of empathy with
a romantic partner. While numerous marital and premarital pro-
grams are available that focus on active listening, communication,
and conflict resolution skills, no other programs are designed
solely to increase partner empathy. For example, the Relationship
Enhancement Program (Guemey, 1988) has one component of the
30-hour training that addresses the skill of empathy. However, the
stated purpose of the nine-step program is to promote the values of
honesty, compassion, and equity in order to improve family rela-
tionships, not increase family empathy. Given the empirical sup-
port for the importance of empathy, and the lack of other empathy
training programs designed for couples in romantic relationships,
the senior author developed an empathy training program (Long,
1995). The purpose of the present study was to provide empathy
instruction to a volunteer group of couples involved in romantic re-
lationships and then assess the effectiveness of that instruction at
the conclusion of and six months following the training.
Empirical Rationale and
Program Description by Session
A very brief description of the empathy training program is
provided in the body of this paper. The program was designed as
a structured, psychoeducational group for couples who desired t
increase their expression of empathy with a partner. Like other
training programs, the information was developed to be easy to
understand, free of formal terminology, and relevant to specifi
romantic relationships (Brems et al., 1993). Six components of em-
pathy were described and modeled for participants. The program-
matic ideas and the six components of empathy were develope
through a thorough review of the empathy literature. Several pro-
grams that attempted to teach empathy skills to different popula-
tions were especially useful for the development of this particular
program (Brems et al., 1993; Hatcher et al., 1994; Herbek & Yam
marion, 1990; Patore, 1995). The authors provided empirical sup
port for each of the sessions and components of empathy in th
session descriptions below.
With all of the participants, every effort was made to encour-
age active participation in the training process. Although couple
were not expected to disclose private information about their re
lationships while meeting with the group, they were expected t
complete the homework and discuss issues privately with their
partners. Each of the five, two-hour sessions included a brief lec-
ture about a component of empathy, along with the opportunity
for a large group discussion of the material. Then couples wer
given an opportunity to discuss the expression of that component
of empathy privately, within the context of their own relation
ships. After Session One, each subsequent session began with
rehearsal of the most salient points from the previous meeting to
maintain continuity from week to week.
Session One
During Session One, participants were provided with an
overview of the five-week training, and were asked to complete
informed consent forms. An operational definition of empathy
was given to each of the individuals. Empathy was defined as: (a
an accurate understanding of the situation of a partner, putting
*An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of The Na
tional Council on Family Relations in Washington, D.C., 1997. We gratefully acknowledg
the valuable contributions of Dr. Phame Camarena who read an earlier version of this paper.
**Address correspondence to: Edgar C. J. Long, Ph.D., Department of Human Env
ronmental Studies, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859; e-mail
Key Words: dyadic perspective taking, empathy, marital and premarital enrichment, rela-
tionship enhancement programs, relationship satisfaction.
(Family Relations, 1999, 48, 235-242)
1999 V48 N 3235
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Tue, 05 Apr 2016 01:50:21 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
8/17/2019 Empatía en Parejas
3/9
yourself in his/her shoes, seeing the world from his/her point of
view and (b) communicating that understanding to a partner, thus
increasing the likelihood that one's partner feels understood. The
group then brainstormed a list of personal characteristics of indi-
viduals they knew who were very empathic. For homework, cou-
ples were asked to keep a mental log of people they observed
during the week, other than their partners, who displayed either
very high or very low levels of empathy.
Session Two
At the beginning of Session Two, individuals were asked to
describe people they had noticed during the previous week who
had demonstrated very high or low levels of empathy. The con-
cept of empathic sensitivity was introduced and defined as a skill
in understanding and being aware of and attuned to other people,
even the most subtle forms of nonverbal communication of others.
This discussion of empathic sensitivity was similar to the discus-
sion of emotional sensitivity as defined by Riggio (1989). Couples
were provided with a copy of the seven items from the Emotional
Sensitivity Scale (Riggio, 1989) as a way of illustrating empathic
sensitivity.
To help participants think about their own empathic sensitiv-
ity, the group was shown a video of a couple discussing a relation-
ship problem. However, the volume was turned down so that no
sound was audible, in order to encourage everyone to focus solely
on the nonverbal channel of communication, rather than the ver-
bal content of the message. Participants were encouraged to think
about how sensitive they were to these subtle, nonverbal cues of
others' communication. Based on observations of the video, par-
ticipants were asked to make inferences about the messages they
had observed being sent through the nonverbal channel of com-
munication. The group then discussed their perceptions of the in-
dividuals and the couple's relationship, basing them solely upon
observation of the nonverbal cues on the video tape. Participants
then rated themselves on a scale, indicating how empathetically
sensitive they were to these nonverbal cues of people in general.
The discussion then moved to empathic sensitivity with a
partner. An important part of the present program was understand-
ing those factors that would encourage the expression of empathy
within the context of a specific relationship. Previous research in-
dicated that people may have the ability to be empathic, but fail to
be empathic within the context of a specific relationship (Long &
Andrews, 1990). Davis and Franzoi (1991) differentiate between
the capacity and the tendency to be empathic. A capacity refers to
one's ability to be empathic; however, a tendency refers to the
likelihood of being empathic with another. One can have a capacity
that is not likely to be expressed within the context of a specific
relationship. Throughout the entire empathy training, individuals
were asked to think about those situations that would increase the
likelihood they would express empathy with their partners. The
training attempted to help couples understand and create an envi-
ronment that would encourage the likelihood that empathy would
be expressed with their partners. Thus, participants were also
asked to rate how empathically sensitive they were towards their
partners. The group brainstormed the reasons why it was often
more difficult to be empathetically sensitive with a partner than it
was to be empathetically sensitive with others in general. Individ-
uals were asked to write down a list of those situations where they
would be the most and the least likely to be empathetically sensi-
tive with their partners. Couples were then given private time
with each other to discuss this information. The facilitators were
attempting to encourage couples' understanding of the fact that
empathy is often relationship and situation specific, not expressed
similarly across relationships and situations.
Several scholars have suggested that an important componen
of empathy is the suspension of one's own thoughts and feeling
(Barret-Lennard, 1962; Gladstein & Feldstein, 1983). It is impossi-
ble for an individual to be empathic if that person is overly focused
upon his/her self. One can only express empathy towards a part
ner by focusing on the point of view of the partner, at least tem-
porarily putting one's own point of view aside. Couples were asked
to generate a list of the situations that increase the likelihood o
suspending one's own thoughts and feelings in order to focus
upon the thoughts and feelings of the partner. Partners then
shared this information with each other.
An additional component of empathy is listening (Guerney
1974; Ickes, 1997; Rogers, 1957). Empathic listening was defined
as a situation where a person is consciously, and in a very inten-
tional fashion, attempting to listen to all communicative information
from a partner. The goal of all listening was described as a shared
meaning. A shared meaning is a situation where the message sen
is understood by the listener exactly as it was intended by the
speaker (Miller, Nunally, & Wackman, 1979). To facilitate listening
Egan (1994) suggested that people enact the behaviors within the
SOLER position. Egan suggested that listening was most effectiv
when one faced the person squarely, had open posture, leaned
slightly towards the speaker, had appropriate eye contact, and
practiced these skills in a relaxed fashion.
Couples were asked to discuss with each other how they
would feel if their partner made a concerted effort to be an em-
pathic listener. After couples had completed this assignment in
dyads, facilitators asked couples to share the benefits of empathi
listening with the entire group. Individuals were asked to thin
about those situations in their relationships that were likely to make
empathic listening with their partners happen in a satisfactory man
ner and then communicate that information with their partners.
Finally, a relationship issue was defined as a situation in a re
lationship where a decision needed to be made that concerned on
or both people (Miller et al., 1979). For homework, individual
made a list of the issues they felt needed to be discussed within
their own relationships. Individuals then ranked the severity o
each issue on a seven point scale, indicating how emotionally easy
(0) or difficult (6) it would be to discuss each issue with their part-
ners. During empathy assignments, couples were encouraged t
only discuss issues that were on both partners' lists, and those that
were not too negatively charged with emotion, since they were
learning new skills.
Session Three
Session Three began with a brief talk about gender differences
in communication (Tannen, 1990). Tannen argues that women typi
cally use language to get close to people and join; thus, communi
cation is seen as a way of developing intimacy. On the other hand
males have been socialized to believe that communication is a way
of dominating others and pushing them around. For males, com
munication is often used to protect oneself from others. Severa
scholars indicate that gender differences in communication pat
terns give rise to the pursuer/withdrawal pattern (Gottman, 1994;
Markman, Stanley, & Blumberg, 1994; Notarius, & Markman
1993). Though this pattern does not always hold true, men are
more likely to withdraw from the discussion of relationship issues
236Fm yRton
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Tue, 05 Apr 2016 01:50:21 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
8/17/2019 Empatía en Parejas
4/9
whereas women want to pursue the discussion of issues. The facili-
tators then encouraged a large group discussion of this pursuer/
withdrawal situation within the context of participants' own inti-
mate relationships.
Communication, listening, and paraphrasing have long been
perceived as important components of empathy (Rogers, 1957).
One very effective method of helping couples communicate, lis-
ten, and paraphrase is the speaker/listener technique developed
by Markman and his colleagues in the Prevention and Relation-
ship Enhancement Program (Markman, Floyd, Stanley, & Lewis,
1986). This technique has been developed as a way of discussing
relationship issues. The speaker/listener technique involves one
person adopting the role of the speaker while the partner listens
and then paraphrases the content and feelings of the speaker.
Then, individuals change roles. The facilitators presented a video
demonstration of the speaker/listener technique and a couple
trained to use this process modeled the successful use of the tech-
nique. Finally, couples were given time with their partners to
practice the technique. After couples had practiced the speaker/
listener skills, they were asked to evaluate this process and deter-
mine whether or not partners were feeling understood. Any ques-
tions couples had were discussed and answered within the large
group setting. At the end of this session, a homework assignment
was given to couples to select a minor relationship issue and prac-
tice the speaker/listener skill twice during the upcoming week.
Session Four
At the beginning of Session Four, the facilitators introduced
the idea of empathy checking, which is an attempt to assess the
degree to which an empathic understanding had taken place. The
question posed to the speaker was, To what degree was the lis-
tener's paraphrase an accurate understanding of the message
sent? If the listener could communicate the message so that the
speaker felt clearly understood, then empathy had been expressed.
The degree of empathy was demonstrated to the listener on a
bull's eye target. If a message was completely understood, then
the speaker was to point to the bull's eye center of the target. If
the listener did not completely understand the communication,
then the speaker was to point out a location on the target that best
represented the appropriate level of listener empathy. Not arriving
at a complete bull's eye was not initially framed as problematic.
The abilities to communicate and experience an empathic under-
standing were conveyed as difficult processes which took time
and effort. If a complete empathic understanding was not
achieved during the empathy check, then the speaker was to com-
municate the message once again to the listener in an attempt to
assist the listener's arrival at a more accurate empathic understand-
ing. The goal was to achieve the level of empathic understanding
demonstrated by a bull's eye. Individuals were asked to explain to
their partners how it felt when they were fully understood.
Session Five
On the fifth evening, the facilitators reviewed each of the
components of empathy. Again, the facilitators stressed the im-
portance of understanding the situations that make an empathic
understanding more or less likely to happen within the context of
a specific relationship. At this stage of the process, individuals
not only understood the components of empathy, but also the sit-
uations within their own relationships that would make the ex-
pression of empathy more or less likely to take place.
Up to this point in the training, any attempt to solve any rela-
tionship issues had not been made. The sole purpose of the program
was to gain an empathic understanding of the issues. For some cou
ples, this sole focus upon empathy without any attempt to solv
issues in their relationship was frustrating. Thus, in this final ses
sion, once empathy had been demonstrated, the facilitators dis
cussed resolving relationship issues. To solve specific relationshi
issues the facilitators suggested that couples follow four steps
which were an adapted and abbreviated version of the nine-step
Mutual Problem Solving Training (Ridley & Nelson, 1984). Th
four steps were: (a) use all of the empathy skills outlined in the
empathy training program to communicate and listen to each
other; (b) brainstorm as many possible solutions to a situation a
possible; (c) evaluate all of the options and then implement on
possible solution; and (d) set a specific date to evaluate the solu
tion to see if the problematic issue is resolved. If the solution wa
not working by that date, couples were instructed to return to ste
c and attempt another solution.
Method
Participants and Recruitment Procedure
Through newspaper, radio advertisements, and editorials, 4
couples in the central region of Michigan registered to participate
in a five-week, 10-hour empathy training program. Participant
were volunteers who received no compensation for their involve
ment. The advertised goals of the program were to teach individ
uals the skills that were the components of empathic behavior
and then encourage couples to practice those skills with thei
partners. Participants were told that the following six component
of empathy would be taught: empathic sensitivity, suspension o
one's own thoughts and feelings, empathic listening, empathi
communication, the communication of an empathic understand
ing through paraphrasing, and empathic checking with a partner
The average age of the participants was 31.84 years. The partici
pants' ages ranged from 18 through 54 years. Sixteen percent o
the couples were cohabiting, 66% had been married an averag
of 10 years, and 18% had been dating for an average of 21/2 year
The intent of the program was not to assist couples in resolvin
their relationship issues or problems as much as it was to hel
them better express an empathic understanding of each other.
Design
A longitudinal, quasi-experimental design was used to asses
the effectiveness of the training program over time. Pre and post
treatment assessments were undertaken to see if the expression o
empathy with a partner increased over time as a result of the treat-
ment program. Random assignment to either a treatment or wai
listed comparison group was used to control for any pretest differ
ences in empathy that might have existed between the two groups
prior to the empathy training (Kerlinger, 1973). Both groups wen
through the same training at different times. The treatment grou
was trained five weeks before the wait listed comparison group
The authors did not consider it feasible to have a compariso
group that received no treatment at all. Volunteers were all re
cruited based on their interest in empathy training, therefore, th
authors felt ethically obliged to offer the empathy training to a
the volunteers.
Two different groups were in the research design for sever
reasons. Practically speaking, to have 96 people all taking empa
1999 V48 N 3237
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Tue, 05 Apr 2016 01:50:21 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
8/17/2019 Empatía en Parejas
5/9
Figure 1. Research Design for Empathy Training
Tm WekI Wek5Wek10Wek24Wek29
Treatmnt Group* Pre-Test Treatmnt Post-Test l) Post-Test 2
(Six month follow-up)
Wit Lsted Comparison Group* Pre-Test Treatmnt Post-Test l) Post-Test 2
(Six month follow-up)
*Couples were randomly assigned to either the treatment or wait listed comparison group. Both groups took the same training at different times. The training was de-
layed for the wait listed comparison group.
thy training at the same time and location would have been very
difficult because the training involved interaction within a large
group as well as interaction between members of the dyad. The
two group design could also be effective in demonstrating a repli-
cation of the results. If both groups received the treatment at dif-
ferent times and scores in both groups increased, it could be
concluded that differences in empathy scores were the result of a
treatment effect and not historical factors outside the training.
The design for the research is represented by Figure 1.
Measures
General empathy of each participant was assessed using the
perspective taking subscale (PT) of the Interpersonal Reactivity
Index (Davis, 1980). The measure was designed to assess the de-
gree to which a person could understand the point of view of others
in general. The measure included items such as, I sometimes try
to understand my friends better by imagining how things look
from their perspective. The PT subscale was a seven item, self-
report measure shown to be stable over time, with adequate inter-
nal consistency and validity (Bernstein & Davis, 1982; Davis,
1980; Davis, Hull, Young, & Warren, 1987). The Alpha coefficient
of reliability with the present sample was .81.
The self-reported expression of empathy with a partner was
assessed using the Self Dyadic Perspective Taking (SDPT) Scale
(Long, 1990). The SDPT was a 13 item, self-report scale which
included items such as, I sometimes try to understand my partner
better by imagining how things look from his/her perspective. An
item analysis and assessments of construct and concurrent validity
indicated that the scale had adequate validity. The Alpha coeffi-
cient of reliability with the present sample was .80.
The perceptions of the expression of empathy of one's own
partner were assessed using the Other Dyadic Perspective Taking
(ODPT) Scale (Long, 1990). The ODPT was a 20 item, paper/
pencil assessment of the empathic expressions of a partner. A sam-
ple item from the scale was, My partner is able to accurately com-
pare his/her point of view with mine. The Alpha coefficient for
the ODPT with the present sample was .94. An item analysis and
assessments of construct and concurrent validity indicated that
the measure had adequate validity.
The propensity for partners to terminate the relationship was
measured with a revised version of the abbreviated Marital Sta-
Table 1
Repeated Measures Analyses of Variance: Change in Empathy Scores Over Six
Months
Scale Time Gender Time * Gender Interaction
PT1129*** 63 867***
SDPT785*** 38 473*
ODPT638 2916
PT: Measure of general perspective taking. SDPT: Measure of self dyadic per-
spective taking. ODPT: Measure of other dyadic perspective taking.
*p
8/17/2019 Empatía en Parejas
6/9
perception of partner empathy, the authors hypothesized that indi-
viduals would also perceive an increase in their respective partner's
expression of empathy (ODPT) over the six-month period of time.
As well as the three hypotheses above, an additional ex-
ploratory question was formulated to examine gender differences
on each of the three hypotheses. While females typically score
higher than males on self-report measures of empathy (Eisenberg
& Lennon, 1983), the authors wanted to investigate whether or not
any gender differences in the treatment effect of the empathy train-
ing program would appear. If empathy scores increased over time,
would there be any gender differences in the treatment effect? This
was merely an exploratory question, as no previous empirical work
on which to formulate any directional hypotheses was available.
Hypothesis Four: Since empathy had been positively related
to relationship satisfaction in previous studies (Long, 1993a; Long
& Andrews, 1990), the authors hypothesized that a positive
change in the expression of empathy with a partner over five
weeks and six months would be positively related to relationship
satisfaction at five weeks and six months. Any improvement in the
expression of empathy would be assumed to be related to higher
relationship satisfaction. Hypothesis Five: Since empathy had been
negatively related to a propensity to terminate a relationship in
previous empirical work (Long, 1993a; Long & Andrews, 1990),
changes in empathy at five weeks and six months were predicted
to be negatively related to a propensity to terminate the relation-
ship at five weeks and at six months.
Results
As mentioned above, couples were randomly assigned to either
a treatment or a wait listed comparison group. However, three
couples could not attend the group they had been randomly as-
signed to because of schedule conflicts. As a result of a need for
participants, the authors allowed these couples to participate in
the program and attend the group they had not been assigned to.
The authors did a series of analyses examining any possible em-
pathy differences between the wait listed comparison and treat-
ment groups' empathy scores before the training began. These
analyses were necessary because of the assignment problem
mentioned above, because the sample size was relatively small,
and because random assignment cannot guarantee equal groups.
A series of ANOVA's were used to examine pre-training group
differences on all three empathy measures, general empathy with
others (PT), self-reported empathy with one's partner (SDPT),
and, finally, one's perceptions of a partner's empathy (ODPT).
No significant differences between the treatment and wait listed
comparison group scores on any of the three empathy measures
were found. Thus, the authors could say with certainty that both
groups' empathic abilities, as measured by the three empathy
scales, were equal before the training began.
Treatment Effect of the Training
Changes in general empathy over time. The statistic used to
test for a significant change in empathy scores over six months was
a repeated measures analysis of variance. A significant change in
scores over the six-month period of time was found on the general
empathy scale (PT). No differences in this effect by group were
shown; both the treatment and wait listed comparison group scores
improved over time. Since no differences were evident by group
on any of the three empathy measures, the group variable was not
included in the table of results. Hypothesis One was rejected be-
Figure 2. Changes in PT Means Over Time by Gender
3.8 -
36- Feme
34- a - Mes
; 32 -
3- X
123
Time of Measurement
Time of Measurement 1 = Pre-test (before the training)
Time of Measurement 2 = Five weeks (at the end of the training)
Time of Measurement 3 = Six months (six months following the training)
PT: Measure of general perspective taking
cause over the six-month period the participants' scores on th
general expression of empathy increased. No gender differences in
the increase in the general empathy scores were shown. Male
and females improved equally as a result of the training. How
ever, a time by gender interaction on the general expression o
empathy with others was demonstrated. Thus, the change over
time was unique by gender.
Changes in self-reported empathy with one's partner ove
time. On the self-reported expression of empathy with a partner
(SDPT), a significant change in the scores over time was demon
strated. Once again, no differences by group on the SDPT wa
shown; both the treatment and wait listed comparison group scores
increased over time. Thus, over the six-month time period, all par-
ticipants stated that they had improved the expression of empathy
with their partners. Hypothesis Two was, therefore, supported. Th
analyses also revealed no gender differences on the increase in the
SDPT scores. Males' and females' self-reported expressions o
empathy both increased as a result of the training. However, a tim
by gender interaction effect was evident. Thus, again, the change
over time was unique by gender, as evidenced in figure 3.
Changes in perception of partner's empathy over time. A sig
nificant change in the perceptions of a partner's empathy (ODPT)
over time was indicated. No differences by group on the ODPT
were evident; both the wait listed comparison and treatment group
scores on the ODPT improved over time. Over the six-month
period, all the participants reported an increase in their partner's
expression of empathy. Hypothesis Three was also supported
Once again no gender differences in the changes in the ODPT
scores were found. Both males' and females' scores improved as
result of the training. On the ODPT no time by gender interaction
effect was demonstrated.
Figure 3. Changes in SDPT Means Over Time by Gender
2.8 -
6 - 4 Femes
2.4 -~ - U Mles
L-
22
123
Time of Measurement
Time of Measurement 1 = Pre-test (before the training)
Time of Measurement 2 = Five weeks (at the end of the training)
Time of Measurement 3 = Six months (six months following the training)
SDPT: Measure of self dyadic perspective taking
1999 V48 N 3239
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Tue, 05 Apr 2016 01:50:21 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
8/17/2019 Empatía en Parejas
7/9
Figure 4. Changes in ODPT Means Over Time by Gender
2.4 -
2 3
> 22 - /, * *-Femes
21- -0Mes
0 2- *
1.9 - I l l__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
123
Time of Measurement
Time of Measurement 1 = Pre-test (before the training)
Time of Measurement 2 = Five weeks (at the end of the training)
Time of Measurement 3 = Six months (six months following the training)
ODPT: Measure of other dyadic perspective taking
Empathy change and relationship outcome measures. To test
Hypotheses Four and Five empathy difference scores were calcu-
lated for all participants. For example, a difference score was cal-
culated for the general measure of empathy by subtracting the PT
score at the end of the five-week training (post-test 1) from the
pre-test PT score. This PT difference score (PT5) was then used as
a measure to demonstrate the degree of improvement in the gen-
eral expression of empathy with others during the five week pro-
gram. Another difference score was calculated for each individual
by subtracting the PT score at the end of six months (post-test 2)
from the pre-test PT score. This difference score (PT6) was used
as a measure of the individuals' increased expression of empathy
with others in general at the end of six months. Similar difference
scores were developed for the SDPT SDPT5, SDPT6) and
ODPT (ODPT5, ODPT6) measures. Thus, six difference scores
were calculated for each individual, two for each of the three em-
pathy measures. The first difference score indicated the change in
empathy from the beginning to the end of the five-week training
program. The second difference score demonstrated changes in
empathy through the six-month follow-up.
Each of these difference scores were then correlated with re-
lationship satisfaction and propensity to terminate the relationship
scores. A series of correlation coefficients were calculated to test
these hypotheses. When all participants were examined, only the
change in the ODPT over six months (ODPT6) was significantly
related to relationship satisfaction at the six-month follow-up.
The ODPT6 score was positively related to the global measure of
relationship satisfaction score at the six-month follow-up (r = .39,
p < .05). Thus, for all participants, changes in the perceptions of
their partners' expression of empathy six months after the training
were positively related to their own relationship satisfaction at the
six-month follow-up. Fifteen percent of the variance in relationship
satisfaction at the six-month follow-up was related to the percep-
tion of their partner's change in empathy. None of the difference
scores were significantly related to a propensity to terminate the
relationship. Therefore Hypothesis Four was supported and Hy-
pothesis Five was rejected.
Discussion and Conclusion
The authors believe this study adds to the empirical literature
on the study of empathy. To this point in time, numerous pro-
grams have been designed to teach empathy to a variety of popu-
lations. However, this is the only program the authors are aware of
that has a sole focus on an increased expression of empathy with
a romantic partner. The program shows promise in this first assess-
ment, as participants in both the treatment and wait listed compar-
ison groups had increased scores on all three empathy measures.
Surprisingly, the present study was able to demonstrate
treatment effect in the expression of empathy with others in gen
eral. This was evidenced even though the purpose of the program
was solely to increase empathy with a partner. Subjects in thi
study reported that their new empathic understanding was general-
ized to relationships outside of the relationship with their romantic
partners. The self-report of empathy with others increased for both
males and females. In this culture, empathy is a behavioral expec
tation for females more than it is for males; thus, one might expec
females to generalize their new empathy skills to other relation
ships more than males. However, having highlighted the impor
tance of empathy within relationships, both genders realized th
importance of empathy within the context of relationships and re-
ported they were more empathic with others in general.
As expected, an increase in the self-reported expression of em
pathy with a partner and an increase in the perception of one's part
ner's empathy were demonstrated. Males and females both rate
themselves as being more empathic and rated their partners a
more empathic over the six-month period. For a time, social scien
tists debated whether or not people could learn to be more em
pathic with others (Myrick & Erney, 1985). This study, however
adds to a growing body of literature that demonstrates that empa-
thy can, indeed, be learned. Even within the context of intimate re-
lationships, people can learn to express greater empathy toward
their partners. Even in a culture where males are often not expected
to be as empathic as females, males can learn to be more empathic.
The increase in empathy scores at six months for both genders
is an important finding within this study. Since the program doe
demonstrate a change in empathy, the authors were encouraged to
see that the change could be measured at the time of the secon
post-test. As noted above, the authors attempted to make the pro-
gram easy to understand and relevant. The fact that the change in
empathy scores could be measured at six months may be an indica-
tion that the program achieved the goals of ease and relevance. Fu-
ture research would do well to assess the effect of the program for
an even longer period of time, so that interventionists can decid
when couples may need a booster training session.
The interaction effects noted in these analyses need clarifica-
tion in future research. For both the self-report PT and SDPT
scales, the pattern of change over time was different by gender.
The time by gender interaction effect denotes the importance o
gender change over time. As indicated in figure two, the change in
empathy scores during the first five weeks was more pronounced
for females than males. When asked about their own general em-
pathic abilities, females were more likely than males to report
more rapid response to the training. While gender difference in
scores were not demonstrated, the change over time was uniqu
by gender. Future research would do well to assess the reason and
extent of that gender change in scores over time.
Also important is the fact that the change in empathic expres-
sion with a partner was positively related to relationship satisfac-
tion. The increased expression of empathy over six month
accounted for 15% of the relationship satisfaction six months fol-
lowing the training. The change in the expression of empathy a
five weeks was not significantly related to satisfaction at five
weeks but only after six months. Perhaps both males and female
were waiting to see if their partners' empathy change would las
over time. Had one's partner really changed or did a 10-hour pro-
240Fm yRton
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Tue, 05 Apr 2016 01:50:21 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
8/17/2019 Empatía en Parejas
8/9
gram only temporarily influence the expression of empathy? The
results indicated that by six months those who truly perceived their
partners as more empathic were also more likely to have higher
levels of relationship satisfaction. Since partner empathy has been
previously shown to be positively related to relationship satisfac-
tion, one would expect this finding. This finding again verified the
importance of empathy within the context of intimate relationships.
When individuals improve their empathic abilities, partners' rela-
tionship satisfaction improves.
The authors expected that increased empathy would also be
negatively related to thoughts about terminating the relationship.
When individuals improve their empathic abilities, partners would
be less likely to leave the relationship. However, increased expres-
sion of empathy was not related to fewer thoughts about leaving
the relationship. For the most part, couples in this study were in
long term relationships. On the average, the married couples had
been together 10 years and the dating couples 21/2 years. Perhaps
therapists and marriage scholars should not expect a change in
the expression of empathy to quickly influence people's thoughts
about terminating a relationship. Other empirical work does indi-
cate that the process of relationship disaffection takes a consider-
able amount of time (Kayser, 1996). Thus, more than a six-month
period may be necessary for the expression of empathy to make
significant changes in people's thoughts about leaving or staying
in a relationship. Future researchers should examine changes in
empathy for a time period greater than six months.
A gender difference noted within this sample that contrasts
with previous empirical work was the fact that, at the pre-test, fe-
males did not have significantly higher scores than males on all
three empathy measures. Historically, females' scores on self-report
measures of empathy have typically been higher than males' scores
(Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983). Why does this sample demonstrate a
difference? Perhaps the type of males who agreed to be involved in
this program already were more empathic than males in the general
population. If that is the case, this type of a program may only be
assisting males who are already more empathic than average males
in the population.
Future research also needs to examine the relationship char-
acteristics of those most likely to participate in an empathy enrich-
ment program and the relationship characteristics of those most
and least likely to improve their skills during such a program.
During discussions with couples the facilitators realized that pre-
existing levels of relationship conflict seemed to impede some
couples' ability to respond empathetically to each other. Perhaps
high levels of conflict within a relationship at the outset of a pro-
gram may diminish the desire to express empathy with a partner,
regardless of one's empathic ability. Individuals in these troubled
relationships may feel angry or frustrated that a partner does not
understand their needs for affection, sex, or caring, thus their mo-
tivation to express empathy with a partner might be weak. From
this point of view, expressing empathy to a partner may be highly
unlikely, even with adequate empathy skills. In this troubled rela-
tionship situation, a partner may be more likely to seek to change
or hurt the other partner, with little desire to understand one's part-
ner's point of view. Coming into empathy training in this condi-
tion, the person may not be as motivated to express empathy as
are those individuals who come without a history of relationship
problems. These questions should be examined in future research.
Limitations of the Study
Several limitations within the design of this study need to be
understood when interpreting the results of this work. First, the
sample of couples for this study was a volunteer sample of people
who responded to newspaper advertisements and radio editorials
These findings may not generalize to a cross section of people in
intimate, heterosexual relationships who would not volunteer t
be involved in such a program. In what way does the uniquenes
of these volunteer couples influence the results of this program
A definitive answer to this question cannot be given at this time
This type of program may be too time and energy intensive for
some individuals. The largest number of couples discontinued th
training after the first session when they realized the time com
mitment involved. For the program to be effective, couples mus
be willing to invest a sufficient amount of time and energy. Futur
research needs to examine the relationship and individual charac
teristics of those willing and unwilling to invest five weeks in th
improvement of their relationships.
As is true with any longitudinal design, attrition of partici
pants was a problem with the current study. Several subjects wh
completed the program and the five week assessment had moved
and could not be located at the six-month follow-up. The author
have no way of knowing whether or not the results would chang
if these participants were included in the six-month follow-up data
Evaluation researchers also suggest that programs be evalu
ated and compared to alternate treatment programs (Guerney
Maxson, 1990). Since this was the initial assessment of the empathy
training program, we believe the design implemented was appro
priate for this stage of program evaluation. However, future research
would do well to compare this empathy training program with
the relationship outcomes of individuals who have taken othe
programs such as PREP (Markman et al., 1986), the Relationship
Enhancement Program (Guerney, 1974), or have been involved in
individual counseling to improve empathy with a partner.
References
Bagarozzi, D. A., & Anderson, S. A. (1989). Personal, marital and family myths
Theoreticalformulations and clinical strategies. New York: Norton & Company
Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1962). Dimensions of therapist response as causal factor
in therapeutic change. Psychological Monographs, 43, 185-193.
Bernstein, W. H., & Davis, M. H. (1982). Perspective taking self-consciousness an
accuracy in person perception. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3, 1-19.
Booth, A., Johnson, D., & Edwards, J. N. (1983). Measuring marital instability
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 387-394.
Brems, D., Baldwin, J., & Baxter, S. (1993). Empirical evaluation of a self
psychologically oriented parent education program. Family Relations, 42, 26-30.
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in
empathy. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
Davis, M. H., & Franzoi, S. L. (1991). Stability and change in adolescent self
consciousness and empathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 70-87.
Davis, M. H., Hull, J. G., Young, R. D., & Warren, P. (1987). Emotional reac
tions to dramatic film stimuli: The influence of cognitive and emotional em
pathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 126-133.
Davis, M. H., & Oathout, H. A. (1987). Maintenance of satisfaction in romanti
relationships: Empathy and relational competence. Journal of Personality an
Social Psychology, 53, 397-410.
Egan, G. (1994). The skilled helper: A problem-management approach to help
ing. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related ca
pacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100-13 1.
Franzoi, S. L., Davis, M. H., & Young, R. D. (1985). The effects of private self
consciousness and perspective taking on satisfaction in close relationship
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1584-1594.
Gladstein, G. A., & Feldstein, J. C. (1983). Using film to increase counselor em
pathic experiences. Counselor Education and Supervision, 20, 125-131.
1999 V 48 N 3241
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Tue, 05 Apr 2016 01:50:21 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
8/17/2019 Empatía en Parejas
9/9
Glenn, N. D. (1990). Quantitative research on marital quality in the 1980s: A
critical review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 818-831.
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce: The relationship between marital
processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Guerney, B. G. (1974). Relationship enhancement: Skill-training programs for
therapy, problem prevention, and enrichment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guerney, B. G. (1988). Family relationship enhancement: A skill training ap-
proach. In L. A. Bond, & B. M. Wagner, (Eds.), Families in transition: Pri-
mary prevention programs that work. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Guerney, B. H., & Maxson, P. (1990). Marital and family enrichment research: A
decade review and look ahead. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 1127-
1135.
Hatcher, S. L., Nadeau, M. S., Walsh, L. K., Reynolds, M., Galea, J., & Marz, K.
(1994). The teaching of empathy for high school and college students: Testing
Rogerian methods with the interpersonal reactivity index. Adolescence, 29,
961-974.
Herbek, T. A., & Yammarion, F. J. (1990). Empathy training for hospital staff
nurses. Group and Organization Studies, 15, 279-295.
Hogan, R. (1969) Development of an empathy scale. The Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 33, 307-316.
Ickes, W. (1997). Empathic accuracy. New York: Guilford.
Kayser, K. (1996). The marital disaffection scale: An inventory for assessing
emotional estrangement in marriage. American Journal of Family Therapy,
24, 83-88.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research, (2nd ed.). New York:
Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.
Long, E. C. J. (1990). Measuring dyadic perspective taking: Two scales for as-
sessing perspective taking in marriage and similar dyads. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 50, 91-103.
Long, E. C. J. (1993a). Maintaining a stable marriage: Perspective taking as a
predictor of a propensity to divorce. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 21,
121-138.
Long, E. C. J. (1993b). Perspective taking differences between high and low ad-
justment marriages: Implications for those in intervention. American Journal
of Family Therapy, 21, 248-260.
Long, E. C. J. (1995). Empathy training program for couples in romantic rela-
tionships. Unpublished Manuscript.
Long, E. C. J., & Andrews, David, W. (1990). Perspective taking as a predictor of
marital adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 126-13 1.
Markman, H. J., Floyd, F., Stanley, S., & Lewis, H. (1986). Prevention. In N. Ja-
cobson & A. Gurman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of marital therapy (pp. 174-
194). New York: Guilford.
Markman, H. J., Stanley, S. M., & Blumberg, S. L. (1994). Fighting for your
marriage: Positive steps for preventing divorce and preserving lasting love.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Miller, S., Nunally, E. W., & Wackman, D. B. (1979). Couple communication I:
Talking together. Minneapolis, MN: Interpersonal Communication Programs Inc.
Myrick, R., & Erney, T. (1985). Youth helping youth: Becoming a peerfacilitator.
Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corporation.
Notarius, C., & Markman, H. (1993). We can work it out: Making sense out o
marital conflict. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
Patore, F. (1995). Empathy training course packetfor medical students. Valhalla
NY: New York Medical College.
Ridley, C. A., & Nelson, R. B. (1984). The behavioral effects of training premar
ital couples in mutual problem-solving skills. Journal of Social and Persona
Relationship, 1, 197-210.
Riggio, R. E. (1989). Social skills inventory manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consultin
Psychologists Press.
Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic per
sonality change. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 21, 95-103.
Sharpley, C. F., & Cross, D. G., (1982). A psychometric evaluation of th
Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44
739-741.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing
the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family
38, 15-27.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation
New York: Morrow.
Edgar C. J. Long, Ph.D., is Professor of Family Studies and Direc
tor of the Honors Program at Central Michigan University.
Jeffrey J. Angera, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Counseling a
Central Michigan University.
Sara Jacobs Carter is a graduate of Central Michigan University
Family Studies Program and is a graduate student at Arizona Stat
University in Marriage and Family Therapy.
Mindy Nakamoto is a graduate of Central Michigan University
Family Studies Program and is a graduate student at University o
Minnesota in Family Science.
Michelle Kalso, is a graduate of Central Michigan University Fam
ily Studies Program and is employed by Families First in Detroit
Michigan.
Received 6-6-1998
Revised & Resubmitted 1-18-1999
Accepted 5-10-1999
Prices Slashed on Excellent Textbook Supplement
T his volume addresses matters of
vital importance to families: to IN-DEPTH INFORMATION FOR GRANT
family professionals who work in AND PROPOSAL PREPARATION
the areas of teaching, research, interven-
tion, and policy; and to those interested
in adolescents. It draws on research and
theoretical thinking of the authors of
23 select articles to create a valuable David H. Demo and Anne-Marie Ambert Editors
resource and an exciting text. The authors J A
. . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~Jay A. Mancini, Senior Editor
examine the intersection of adolescent
developmnt and the famly system NCFR Member $@5 $27.95
280 pages. ISBN 0-916174-51-4. Non-Member 9i95 $31.95
Product #: OP9508 To order, contact NCFR, 3989 Central Ave., NE, Ste. 550, Minneapolis, MN 55421.
t __________________________ _I Toll-free at 888-781-9331; Fax: 612-781-9348; E-mail: ncfr3989gncfr.org.
242Fm yRton
Thi t t d l d d f 168 176 5 118 T 05 A 2016 01 50 21 UTC