Céline Hinnekens

The Role of Cognitive and Affective Empathy in Spouses' Support Interactions: An Observational Study

The present study examined how support providers’ empathic dispositions (dispositional perspective taking, empathic concern, and personal distress) as well as their situational empathic reactions (interaction-based perspective taking, empathic concern, and personal distress) relate to the provision of spousal support during observed support interactions. Forty-five committed couples provided questionnaire data and participated in two ten-minute social support interactions designed to assess behaviors when partners are offering and soliciting social support. A video-review task was used to assess situational forms of perspective taking (e.g., empathic accuracy), empathic concern and personal distress. Data were analyzed by means of the multi-level Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Results revealed that providers scoring higher on affective empathy (i.e., dispositional empathic concern), provided lower levels of negative support. In addition, for male partners, scoring higher on cognitive empathy (i.e., situational perspective taking) was related to lower levels of negative support provision. For both partners, higher scores on cognitive empathy (i.e., situational perspective taking) correlated with more instrumental support provision. Male providers scoring higher on affective empathy (i.e., situational personal distress) provided higher levels of instrumental support. Dispositional perspective taking was related to higher scores on emotional support provision for male providers. The current study furthers our insight into the empathy-support link, by revealing differential effects (a) for men and women, (b) of both cognitive and affective empathy, and (c) of dispositional as well as situational empathy, on different types of support provision.

Demand behavior and empathic accuracy in observed conflict interactions in couples

ABSTRACT The study reported in this research note sought to extend the research on motivated empathic accuracy by exploring whether intimate partners who are highly motivated to induce change in their partner during conflicts will be more empathically accurate than partners who are less motivated. In a laboratory experiment, the partners within 26 cohabiting couples were randomly assigned the role of conflict initiator. The partners provided questionnaire data, participated in a videotaped conflict interaction, and completed a video-review task. More blaming behavior was associated with higher levels of empathic accuracy, irrespective of whether one was the conflict initiator or not. The results also showed a two-way interaction indicating that initiators who applied more pressure on their partners to change were less empathically accurate than initiators who applied less pressure, whereas their partners could counter this pressure when they could accurately “read” the initiator’s thoughts and feelings.

A Pronoun Analysis of Couples' Support Transactions.

The present study collected data about couples’ level of relationship quality and their usage of pronouns that express we-ness or separateness in the context of support interactions. The sample consisted of 48 couples in a long-term relationship who provided questionnaire data and participated in two videotaped social support interaction tasks. Couples’ videotaped interactions were subsequently coded for the number of personal pronouns—we-words (e.g., we, ours, ourselves) versus you and me-words (e.g., me, mine, you, yours)—used by both partners.

EFT-C's understanding of couple distress: an overview of evidence from couple and emotion research

Despite the growing body of research on Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy (EFT-C), less research attention has been paid to the validity of EFT-Cs description of the relationship dynamics that characterize distressed couples. The current theoretical paper provides a narrative review of evidence from existing emotion and couple research for EFT-Cs assumptions on the origin of relationship distress (according to Johnson and to Greenberg and Goldman). Our findings lead to three conclusions: first, the general assumptions outlined by EFT-Cs on need frustration, emotional responses, and interaction patterns are largely supported by the couple and emotion literature. Second, less straightforward evidence was found for the specific elaborations of these principles made by EFT-Cs. Third, a lack of systematic research on EFT-Cs assumptions hampers strong conclusions. We suggest future research on this issue with attention toward current insights in the emotion and couple literature. Practitioner points Evidence supports EFT-Cs basic assumptions that partners’ unmet needs lead to relationship distress and negative emotions, which give rise to negative interaction cycles between partners Direct empirical evidence is available for attachment-related assumptions, whereas assumptions on identity and attraction/liking needs have been less investigated Some of EFT-Cs more specific assumptions need to be more systematically researched