Love and Mindreading: The Role of Empathic Accuracy Perceptions on Relationship Satisfaction by Katherine Marie Blasko A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Psychology) in the University of Michigan-Dearborn 2016 Master’s Thesis Committee: Associate Professor Michelle T. Leonard, Co-Chair Associate Professor Pamela McAuslan, Co-Chair Dedication This thesis is dedicated to the people who have helped me better understand empathy and love during this thesis journey: my mom, Loretta Blasko, for always believing I could excel as a psychologist (and a writer and comedian…); my dad, David Blasko, for telling everyone that he was raising a “professional student” yet never questioning my path; my “other parents,” Diane and Doug Ducat, for rooting for me like their own daughter; my close friends, Alison Martin and Johnie Allen, who cheered me on and commiserated with me during the low points; and finally, my boyfriend Ryan Gannon, who never once appeared bored when the conversation shifted to my love of couple psychology and who insisted I apply for graduate school in the first place. I would not be where I am today without the kindness and support of my loved ones; thank you all. i Acknowledgements Behind every thesis is a team of talented people who helped make it happen. I would like to thank my thesis committee, Dr. Michelle Leonard and Dr. Pam McAuslan, for making the entire process as stress-free as possible. My deepest gratitude to Dr. Michelle Leonard—her humor, kindness, patience, insight, and enthusiasm helped shaped this project from day one; this thesis would not have been the same without her influence. I could not have asked for a better advisor. My sincerest thanks to my research assistants who dedicated their time to running participants and working with the data: Sarah Letang, Jessica Millender, Jessica Gaskin, Brianna Caruso, Melissa McCabee, and Ahmed Ftouni. My special thanks to my classmates for their support, advice, and friendship as we’ve all struggled to balance theses with having a social life. Thank you, University of Michigan—Dearborn, for approving this study and providing the grant that made it possible. Finally, I would like to thank the couples who participated in this study, without whom this contribution to the field of psychology would not be possible. ii Table of Contents Dedication ........................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... ii List of Tables .................................................................................................................... iv List of Appendices ..............................................................................................................v Abstract ............................................................................................................................. vi Chapter I .............................................................................................................................1 Introduction .................................................................................................................1 Social Support ....................................................................................................2 Empathy .............................................................................................................6 Empathic Accuracy (EA) ...................................................................................8 Perceived Partner Empathic Accuracy (PPEA) ...............................................13 Perceived Empathic Accuracy (PEA) ..............................................................17 Dispositional Empathy: Empathic Concern and Perspective Taking ..............18 Sources of Empathic Accuracy Perceptions ....................................................20 Summary ...................................................................................................................23 Hypotheses ................................................................................................................24 Chapter II .........................................................................................................................26 Methods.....................................................................................................................26 Participants .......................................................................................................26 Measures ..........................................................................................................27 Procedure .........................................................................................................32 Chapter III ........................................................................................................................39 Results .......................................................................................................................39 Chapter IV ........................................................................................................................45 Discussion .................................................................................................................45 References .........................................................................................................................58 iii List of Tables Table 1 ......................................................................................................................63 Table 2 ......................................................................................................................64 Table 3 ......................................................................................................................65 Table 4 ......................................................................................................................66 Table 5 ......................................................................................................................67 Table 6 ......................................................................................................................68 iv List of Appendices Appendix A ...............................................................................................................69 Appendix B ...............................................................................................................71 Appendix C ...............................................................................................................72 Appendix D ...............................................................................................................73 Appendix E ...............................................................................................................77 Appendix F................................................................................................................80 Appendix G ...............................................................................................................81 Appendix H ...............................................................................................................82 Appendix I ................................................................................................................83 Appendix J ................................................................................................................84 Appendix K ...............................................................................................................85 Appendix L ...............................................................................................................86 Appendix M ..............................................................................................................87 v Abstract Purpose: The current study investigated the correlations between objective, subjective, and dispositional empathy and relationship satisfaction. Highly satisfied relationships are linked with better health (Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001), yet empathic accuracy—an objective measure of correctly understanding a partner’s thoughts and feelings from moment-to-moment—has inconsistent associations with relationship satisfaction. As the importance of perceptions in social support has been identified and social cognition theory emphasizes perceptions, I investigated perceived partner empathic accuracy (PPEA) and perceived (self) empathic accuracy (PEA) along with dispositional empathic concern and perspective taking. We also investigated sources of information partners pay attention to when determining if their partner understood them (PPEA) or if they understood their partner (PEA). To my knowledge, this study is the first to explore PPEA and sources of empathic accuracy perceptions as they relate to relationship satisfaction. Methods: Fifty-one couples were videotaped having a conflict discussion and partners separately watched the recording twice. During the first viewing, participants recorded specific thoughts and feelings from the original discussion. Participants also rated how well they believed their partner understood their thought/feeling and the influence different sources had on that assessment. During the second viewing, participants inferred what their partner had been thinking/feeling at those identified moments. Participants rated their confidence about their inference and rated the influence of different sources. Results: PPEA was associated with relationship satisfaction while EA was not. Positive correlations were found between PPEA, PEA, and empathic concern for women along with perspective taking for men. Both PPEA and perspective taking accounted for significant variance in relationship satisfaction. For PPEA, tone of voice was influential for both men and women, as were facial expressions for men and body language for women. For PEA, facial expressions were influential for men while knowledge of past interactions was influential for women. Sources did not directly correlate with relationship satisfaction. Conclusion: Support was found for all hypotheses, suggesting that feeling understood by one’s partner is more important than actually being understood in terms of relationship satisfaction. As men and women paid attention to different sources when perceiving empathy, clinical applications are indicated. vi Running head: LOVE AND MINDREADING 1 Chapter I Introduction With 90% of Americans pairing up as dyads in their lifetime, it’s clear that romantic relationships are central in life (Cherlin, 2010). Reasons for the high prevalence of relationships include benefits such as higher levels of global happiness (Glenn & Weaver, 1981), personal well-being (Proulx, Helms, & Buehler, 2007), physical health (Hughes & Waite, 2009), and financial stability (Cutrona, Russell, Burzette, Wesner, & Bryant, 2011). However, these benefits depend largely on the quality of the relationship. Specifically, highly satisfied couples have the best outcomes for well-being (Kiecolt- Glaser & Newton, 2001; Røsand, Slinning, Eberhard-Gran, Røysamb, & Tambs, 2012; Schmaling, Afari, Barnhart, & Buchwald, 1997). High relationship satisfaction in couples has a broad range of physical and psychological advantages for both members of the couple over less satisfied relationships, ranging from improved cardiovascular and immune functioning (Kiecolt- Glaser & Newton, 2001), decreased mortality after heart attacks (Berkman, Leo- Summers, & Horwitz, 1992), and protection against emotional distress (Røsand et al., 2012). These health benefits may be due to typical relationship behaviors such as holding each other accountable for healthy diet and exercise, noticing health problems in the other which require medical evaluation, or offering social support in times of stress (Kiecolt- Glaser & Newton, 2001). Understandably, the factors underlying the overwhelming LOVE AND MINDREADING 2 health benefits of high relationship satisfaction are an important area of clinical focus. Since these physical and psychological benefits are more strongly associated with highly satisfied couples than with unsatisfied couples, relationship dynamics that contribute to satisfaction should be considered. Social support has been suggested as a link between well-being and relationship satisfaction (Bradbury & Karney, 2004; Kaul & Lakey, 2003). Social Support Social support is often defined as emotional, instrumental, or informational resources offered with the intent of helping another person (Devoldre, Davis, Verhofstadt, & Buysse, 2010). Social support within romantic relationships has been shown to have a robust association with relationship satisfaction (Cramer, 2004; Pasch, Bradbury, & Sullivan, 1997). In addition, social support has been considered an essential component to long-term relationship success (Bradbury & Karney, 2004). Similar to highly satisfied relationships, social support is linked to better health outcomes including lower morbidity and mortality (Berkman, Leo-Summers, & Horwitz, 1993; Cohen, Gottlieb, & Underwood, 2000; Gerteis & Schwerdtfeger, 2016). Theoretically, one would assume increased social support to be linked to increased relationship satisfaction, but inconsistencies have been found. Specifically, an objective measure of social support—enacted support—has an inconsistent association with relationship satisfaction (Helgeson, 1999; Kaul & Lakey, 2003). Enacted support is defined as the measureable actions taken with the intent to help another person (Haber, Cohen, Lucas, & Baltes, 2007). For example, enacted support could include a couple member lending their partner money when finances are tight or the number of times one LOVE AND MINDREADING 3 partner waters the other partner’s house plants while they’re away. Such helpful actions would be thought to bolster relationship satisfaction, yet research suggests they do not always do so (Kaul & Lakey, 2003). This suggests that while social support may be critical for relationships, a person receiving frequent measurable support from their partner (e.g., cooking dinner, asking about their day) will not necessarily have higher satisfaction. This is alarming as current couple therapy treatments emphasize enacted support (Cohen et al., 2000); without knowing the missing link between social support and relationship satisfaction, treatment options will continue to be limited (Kaul & Lakey, 2003). Fortunately, an important subjective aspect of social support has been identified: perceived support. Perceived support is the perception that one has available social support if needed or, if support was received, whether that support was satisfactory (Haber et al., 2007). Perceived support differs from enacted support in that the objective quantity of supportive behaviors does not matter; it only matters how the person receiving (or hoping to receive) the support interprets those actions. For instance, a person can believe their best friend would provide adequate support if needed during a stressful time, whereas a person with five close friends may not believe adequate help would be provided. Perceived support does not directly depend on the measurable amount of support available/provided. Numerous studies have found that perceived support is more strongly associated with relationship satisfaction and well-being than is enacted support (Kaul & Lakey, 2003; Lemay, Clark, & Feeney, 2007; Qadir, Khalid, Haqqani, Huma, & Medhin, 2013). For example, Helgeson (1993) found that perceived support was a stronger predictor of