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. 235-242
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/585632
Accessed: 05-04-2016 01:50 UTC
REFERENCES
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 support@jstor.org.

National Council on Family Relations, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Family Relations

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Tue, 05 Apr 2016 01:50:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

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 sessions 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 empathy 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 welladjusted, stable relationship (Davis & Oathout, 1987; Franzoi, 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 marital 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 diversity 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 programs 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 relationships, not increase family empathy. Given the empirical support 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 relationships and then assess the effectiveness of that instruction at
the conclusion of and six months following the training.

Empirical Rationale and

session descriptions below.

With all of the participants, every effort was made to encourage active participation in the training process. Although couples
were not expected to disclose private information about their relationships while meeting with the group, they were expected to
complete the homework and discuss issues privately with their
partners. Each of the five, two-hour sessions included a brief lecture about a component of empathy, along with the opportunity
for a large group discussion of the material. Then couples were
given an opportunity to discuss the expression of that component
of empathy privately, within the context of their own relationships. After Session One, each subsequent session began with a
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 National Council on Family Relations in Washington, D.C., 1997. We gratefully acknowledge
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 Envi-

Key Words: dyadic perspective taking, empathy, marital and premarital enrichment, relationship enhancement programs, relationship satisfaction.

A very brief description of the empathy training program is

provided in the body of this paper. The program was designed as

Vol.

port for each of the sessions and components of empathy in the

ronmental Studies, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859; e-mail:

Edgar.C.Long@cmich.edu

Program Description by Session

1999,

a structured, psychoeducational group for couples who desired to

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 specific
romantic relationships (Brems et al., 1993). Six components of empathy were described and modeled for participants. The programmatic ideas and the six components of empathy were developed
through a thorough review of the empathy literature. Several programs that attempted to teach empathy skills to different populations were especially useful for the development of this particular
program (Brems et al., 1993; Hatcher et al., 1994; Herbek & Yammarion, 1990; Patore, 1995). The authors provided empirical sup-

(Family Relations, 1999, 48, 235-242)

48,

No.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Tue, 05 Apr 2016 01:50:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

3235

yourself in his/her shoes, seeing the world from his/her point of

attempting to encourage couples' understanding of the fact that

view and (b) communicating that understanding to a partner, thus

empathy is often relationship and situation specific, not expressed

increasing the likelihood that one's partner feels understood. The

similarly across relationships and situations.

group then brainstormed a list of personal characteristics of individuals 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.

Several scholars have suggested that an important component

of empathy is the suspension of one's own thoughts and feelings

(Barret-Lennard, 1962; Gladstein & Feldstein, 1983). It is impossible 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-

Session Two

porarily putting one's own point of view aside. Couples were asked

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 discussion 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 sensitivity, 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 verbal 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 communication. The group then discussed their perceptions of the individuals 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 understanding those factors that would encourage the expression of empathy
within the context of a specific relationship. Previous research indicated 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-

to generate a list of the situations that increase the likelihood of

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 sent
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 effective
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 empathic
listening with the entire group. Individuals were asked to think
about those situations in their relationships that were likely to make

empathic listening with their partners happen in a satisfactory manner 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 one

or both people (Miller et al., 1979). For homework, individuals

made a list of the issues they felt needed to be discussed within
their own relationships. Individuals then ranked the severity of
each issue on a seven point scale, indicating how emotionally easy

(0) or difficult (6) it would be to discuss each issue with their partners. During empathy assignments, couples were encouraged to

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-

ronment that would encourage the likelihood that empathy would

cally use language to get close to people and join; thus, communi-

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-

cation is seen as a way of developing intimacy. On the other hand,

males have been socialized to believe that communication is a way

uals were asked to write down a list of those situations where they
would be the most and the least likely to be empathetically sensitive with their partners. Couples were then given private time
with each other to discuss this information. The facilitators were
236

of dominating others and pushing them around. For males, communication is often used to protect oneself from others. Several
scholars indicate that gender differences in communication patterns 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,

Family

Relations

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Tue, 05 Apr 2016 01:50:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Up to this point in the training, any attempt to solve any rela-

whereas women want to pursue the discussion of issues. The facili-

tators then encouraged a large group discussion of this pursuer/

tionship issues had not been made. The sole purpose of the program

withdrawal situation within the context of participants' own inti-

was to gain an empathic understanding of the issues. For some cou-

mate relationships.

ples, this sole focus upon empathy without any attempt to solve

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 Relationship 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 technique. 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 determine whether or not partners were feeling understood. Any questions 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 practice 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 listener's paraphrase an accurate understanding of the message
sent?" If the listener could communicate the message so that the

issues in their relationship was frustrating. Thus, in this final ses-

sion, once empathy had been demonstrated, the facilitators discussed resolving relationship issues. To solve specific relationship
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). The

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 as
possible; (c) evaluate all of the options and then implement one
possible solution; and (d) set a specific date to evaluate the solution to see if the problematic issue is resolved. If the solution was

not working by that date, couples were instructed to return to step

c and attempt another solution.

Method

Participants and Recruitment Procedure

Through newspaper, radio advertisements, and editorials, 48
couples in the central region of Michigan registered to participate
in a five-week, 10-hour empathy training program. Participants
were volunteers who received no compensation for their involvement. The advertised goals of the program were to teach individuals the skills that were the components of empathic behavior,
and then encourage couples to practice those skills with their
partners. Participants were told that the following six components

of empathy would be taught: empathic sensitivity, suspension of

one's own thoughts and feelings, empathic listening, empathic
communication, the communication of an empathic understand-

speaker felt clearly understood, then empathy had been expressed.

ing through paraphrasing, and empathic checking with a partner.

The degree of empathy was demonstrated to the listener on a

The average age of the participants was 31.84 years. The partici-

bull's eye target. If a message was completely understood, then

pants' ages ranged from 18 through 54 years. Sixteen percent of

the couples were cohabiting, 66% had been married an average
of 10 years, and 18% had been dating for an average of 21/2 years.
The intent of the program was not to assist couples in resolving
their relationship issues or problems as much as it was to help
them better express an empathic understanding of each other.

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 understanding were conveyed as difficult processes which took time

Design

and effort. If a complete empathic understanding was not

A longitudinal, quasi-experimental design was used to assess

achieved during the empathy check, then the speaker was to communicate the message once again to the listener in an attempt to

the effectiveness of the training program over time. Pre and post-

assist the listener's arrival at a more accurate empathic understand-

empathy with a partner increased over time as a result of the treat-

treatment assessments were undertaken to see if the expression of

ing. The goal was to achieve the level of empathic understanding

ment program. Random assignment to either a treatment or wait

demonstrated by a bull's eye. Individuals were asked to explain to

listed comparison group was used to control for any pretest differ-

their partners how it felt when they were fully understood.

ences in empathy that might have existed between the two groups
prior to the empathy training (Kerlinger, 1973). Both groups went

Session Five

through the same training at different times. The treatment group

On the fifth evening, the facilitators reviewed each of the

components of empathy. Again, the facilitators stressed the importance 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 situations within their own relationships that would make the expression of empathy more or less likely to take place.
1999,

Vol.

was trained five weeks before the wait listed comparison group.
The authors did not consider it feasible to have a comparison

group that received no treatment at all. Volunteers were all recruited based on their interest in empathy training, therefore, the
authors felt ethically obliged to offer the empathy training to all
the volunteers.

Two different groups were in the research design for several

reasons. Practically speaking, to have 96 people all taking empa-

48,

No.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Tue, 05 Apr 2016 01:50:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

237

Figure 1. Research Design for Empathy Training

Time

Week

Week

Week

10

Week

24

Week

29

Treatment Group* Pre-Test Treatment Post-Test(l) Post-Test(2)

(Six month follow-up)

Wait Listed Comparison Group* Pre-Test Treatment 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 delayed for the wait listed comparison group.

thy training at the same time and location would have been very

bility Index (Booth, Johnson, & Edwards, 1983). The propensity

difficult because the training involved interaction within a large

to terminate the relationship was defined as any feelings, thoughts,

group as well as interaction between members of the dyad. The

or actions an individual may have had or taken to dissolve the re-

two group design could also be effective in demonstrating a repli-

lationship. A few minor words were changed in the five-item ver-

cation of the results. If both groups received the treatment at dif-

sion so that termination of the relationship applied to individuals

ferent times and scores in both groups increased, it could be

in both premarital and marital relationships. Assessments of crite-

concluded that differences in empathy scores were the result of a

rion and construct validity indicated that the measure was a valid

treatment effect and not historical factors outside the training.

assessment of relationship stability (Booth et al., 1983). The Alpha

The design for the research is represented by Figure 1.

coefficient of reliability with the present sample was .88.

Relationship satisfaction between partners was measured

Measures

with the single item version of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, the

General empathy of each participant was assessed using the

DAS (Spanier, 1976). The DAS was reported to be the most com-

perspective taking subscale (PT) of the Interpersonal Reactivity

monly used measure of relationship satisfaction (Glenn, 1990).

Index (Davis, 1980). The measure was designed to assess the de-

Basing their conclusions upon a discriminant function analysis and

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, selfreport measure shown to be stable over time, with adequate inter-

factor analysis of the DAS from 95 individuals, Sharpley and Cross

(1982) reported that the one-item version of the DAS could adequately replace the full scale measure of relationship satisfaction.

Procedure

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 coefficient of reliability with the present sample was .80.

One week before the empathy training, the treatment group

was mailed a pre-treatment questionnaire. The survey included
several self-report instruments measuring empathy, relationship
satisfaction, propensity to terminate the relationship, and a series

of demographic questions. At the completion of the program, the

treatment group was administered the same group of measures.
During the same week that the treatment group was receiving their

post-test(1) assessment, the wait listed comparison group was

mailed identical surveys. The wait listed comparison group then
completed the same five-week empathy training program with
identical follow-up post-tests at the end of the training. Six

The perceptions of the expression of empathy of one's own

months after each respective group had completed their training

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 sample item from the scale was, "My partner is able to accurately compare his/her point of view with mine." The Alpha coefficient for
the ODPT with the present sample was .94. An item analysis and

program, participants were sent the final questionnaires, thus com-

pleting the final post-test(2) assessment. Ninety-six individuals

started the training. Ninety-one percent of those who came back to

the second training session completed the entire five-week long
program. Seventy-four individuals completed the entire five-week
training, and 50 completed the surveys at the six-month follow-up.

assessments of construct and concurrent validity indicated that

Hypotheses

the measure had adequate validity.

The propensity for partners to terminate the relationship was

measured with a revised version of the abbreviated Marital Sta-

A series of five different hypotheses were tested within this

study. Hypothesis One: The authors hypothesized that the program would not lead to any improvement in scores on the general

empathy measure (PT) over the six-month period of time. Since

Table 1

Repeated Measures Analyses of Variance: Change in Empathy Scores Over Six

Months

Scale Time Gender Time * Gender Interaction

PT

11.29***

.63

8.67***

SDPT 7.85*** .38 4.73*

ODPT 6.38*** .29 .16

PT: Measure of general perspective taking. SDPT: Measure of self dyadic per-

spective taking. ODPT: Measure of other dyadic perspective taking.

*p<.05. **p<.Ol. ***p<.001.

238

the empathy program focused almost solely on the expression of

empathy within the context of a specific relationship, and since
the PT scale measured empathy with others in general, no general
increase in the expression of empathy with others was expected.

Hypothesis Two: Given that the program specifically sought to increase partner empathy, the authors hypothesized that over the sixmonth period an increase in empathy scores on the self-reported

(SDPTI) measure of empathy with a partner would be demonstrated.

Hypothesis Three: Given that the program sought to increase the

Family

Relations

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Tue, 05 Apr 2016 01:50:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

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 exploratory 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 training 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 relationship 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 assigned 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 empathy differences between the wait listed comparison and treatment 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.

Figure 2. Changes in PT Means Over Time by Gender

3.8 -

3.6-

34

1999,

3-

Females

|-

Males

X
1

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 the

general expression of empathy increased. No gender differences in
the increase in the general empathy scores were shown. Males
and females improved equally as a result of the training. How-

ever, a time by gender interaction on the general expression of

empathy with others was demonstrated. Thus, the change over
time was unique by gender.
Changes in self-reported empathy with one's partner over
time. On the self-reported expression of empathy with a partner
(SDPT), a significant change in the scores over time was demonstrated. Once again, no differences by group on the SDPT was
shown; both the treatment and wait listed comparison group scores
increased over time. Thus, over the six-month time period, all participants stated that they had improved the expression of empathy
with their partners. Hypothesis Two was, therefore, supported. The
analyses also revealed no gender differences on the increase in the
SDPT scores. Males' and females' self-reported expressions of
empathy both increased as a result of the training. However, a time
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 significant 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 groups
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 a
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 -

2.6

Vol.

'

; 3.2 -

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-

2.4
L

-~

'

Females

U-

Males

2.2
2

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

48,

No.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Tue, 05 Apr 2016 01:50:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

239

Figure 4. Changes in ODPT Means Over Time by Gender

ison groups had increased scores on all three empathy measures.

2.4 -

2.3>

ment, as participants in both the treatment and wait listed compar-

2.2

2.1

'

-0

*-Females

Males

0 2- *"
1.9 - I l l__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

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 calculated for all participants. For example, a difference score was calculated for the general measure of empathy by subtracting the PT

Surprisingly, the present study was able to demonstrate a

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 this
study reported that their new empathic understanding was generalized 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 expectation for females more than it is for males; thus, one might expect
females to generalize their new empathy skills to other relationships more than males. However, having highlighted the importance of empathy within relationships, both genders realized the
importance of empathy within the context of relationships and reported they were more empathic with others in general.
As expected, an increase in the self-reported expression of empathy with a partner and an increase in the perception of one's partner's empathy were demonstrated. Males and females both rated

score at the end of the five-week training (post-test 1) from the

themselves as being more empathic and rated their partners as

pre-test PT score. This PT difference score (PT5) was then used as

more empathic over the six-month period. For a time, social scien-

a measure to demonstrate the degree of improvement in the gen-

tists debated whether or not people could learn to be more empathic with others (Myrick & Erney, 1985). This study, however,
adds to a growing body of literature that demonstrates that empathy can, indeed, be learned. Even within the context of intimate relationships, people can learn to express greater empathy towards
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.

eral expression of empathy with others during the five week program. 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

The increase in empathy scores at six months for both genders

is an important finding within this study. Since the program does

demonstrate a change in empathy, the authors were encouraged to

see that the change could be measured at the time of the second

scores. A series of correlation coefficients were calculated to test

post-test. As noted above, the authors attempted to make the program easy to understand and relevant. The fact that the change in
empathy scores could be measured at six months may be an indication that the program achieved the goals of ease and relevance. Future research would do well to assess the effect of the program for
an even longer period of time, so that interventionists can decide

these hypotheses. When all participants were examined, only the

when couples may need a "booster" training session.

program. The second difference score demonstrated changes in

empathy through the six-month follow-up.
Each of these difference scores were then correlated with relationship satisfaction and propensity to terminate the relationship

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 perception 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 Hypothesis 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 populations. However, this is the only program the authors are aware of

The interaction effects noted in these analyses need clarification 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 of
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 empathic abilities, females were more likely than males to report a
more rapid response to the training. While gender difference in
scores were not demonstrated, the change over time was unique
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 expression with a partner was positively related to relationship satisfaction. The increased expression of empathy over six months
accounted for 15% of the relationship satisfaction six months following the training. The change in the expression of empathy at
five weeks was not significantly related to satisfaction at five
weeks but only after six months. Perhaps both males and females

that has a sole focus on an increased expression of empathy with

were waiting to see if their partners' empathy change would last

a romantic partner. The program shows promise in this first assess-

over time. Had one's partner really changed or did a 10-hour pro-

240

Family

Relations

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Tue, 05 Apr 2016 01:50:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Limitations of the Study

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

Several limitations within the design of this study need to be

levels of relationship satisfaction. Since partner empathy has been

understood when interpreting the results of this work. First, the

previously shown to be positively related to relationship satisfac-

sample of couples for this study was a volunteer sample of people

tion, one would expect this finding. This finding again verified the

who responded to newspaper advertisements and radio editorials.

importance of empathy within the context of intimate relationships.

When individuals improve their empathic abilities, partners' relationship 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 indicate that the process of relationship disaffection takes a considerable 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.

These findings may not generalize to a cross section of people in

intimate, heterosexual relationships who would not volunteer to

be involved in such a program. In what way does the uniqueness

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 the

training after the first session when they realized the time commitment involved. For the program to be effective, couples must
be willing to invest a sufficient amount of time and energy. Future

research needs to examine the relationship and individual characteristics of those willing and unwilling to invest five weeks in the
improvement of their relationships.
As is true with any longitudinal design, attrition of partici-

pants was a problem with the current study. Several subjects who
completed the program and the five week assessment had moved

and could not be located at the six-month follow-up. The authors

have no way of knowing whether or not the results would change
if these participants were included in the six-month follow-up data.

Evaluation researchers also suggest that programs be evalu-

A gender difference noted within this sample that contrasts

with previous empirical work was the fact that, at the pre-test, females 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

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 appropriate 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 other
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

in the population.

Future research also needs to examine the relationship char-

acteristics of those most likely to participate in an empathy enrich-

Bagarozzi, D. A., & Anderson, S. A. (1989). Personal, marital and family myths:
Theoreticalformulations and clinical strategies. New York: Norton & Company.

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 program 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 motivation 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 relationship situation, a partner may be more likely to seek to change
or hurt the other partner, with little desire to understand one's partner's point of view. Coming into empathy training in this condition, 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.

Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1962). Dimensions of therapist response as causal factors

in therapeutic change. Psychological Monographs, 43, 185-193.

Bernstein, W. H., & Davis, M. H. (1982). Perspective taking self-consciousness and

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 selfpsychologically 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 reactions to dramatic film stimuli: The influence of cognitive and emotional empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 126-133.
Davis, M. H., & Oathout, H. A. (1987). Maintenance of satisfaction in romantic
relationships: Empathy and relational competence. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 53, 397-410.
Egan, G. (1994). The skilled helper: A problem-management approach to helping. 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 relationships.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1584-1594.

Gladstein, G. A., & Feldstein, J. C. (1983). Using film to increase counselor empathic experiences. Counselor Education and Supervision, 20, 125-131.

1999,

Vol.

48,

No.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Tue, 05 Apr 2016 01:50:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

241

Glenn, N. D. (1990). Quantitative research on marital quality in the 1980s: A

critical review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 818-831.

Notarius, C., & Markman, H. (1993). We can work it out: Making sense out of

Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce: The relationship between marital

processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Patore, F. (1995). Empathy training course packetfor medical students. Valhalla,

Guerney, B. G. (1974). Relationship enhancement: Skill-training programs for

therapy, problem prevention, and enrichment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ridley, C. A., & Nelson, R. B. (1984). The behavioral effects of training premar-

Guerney, B. G. (1988). Family relationship enhancement: A skill training ap-

proach. In L. A. Bond, & B. M. Wagner, (Eds.), Families in transition: Pri-

marital conflict. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

NY: New York Medical College.

ital couples in mutual problem-solving skills. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationship, 1, 197-210.

Riggio, R. E. (1989). Social skills inventory manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.

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-

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 the

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,

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,

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,

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.

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 assessing 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 adjustment 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 relationships. 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. Jacobson & A. Gurman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of marital therapy (pp. 174194). 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.

Jeffrey J. Angera, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Counseling at

Central Michigan University.

Sara Jacobs Carter is a graduate of Central Michigan University

Family Studies Program and is a graduate student at Arizona State
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 of
Minnesota in Family Science.

Michelle Kalso, is a graduate of Central Michigan University Family Studies Program and is employed by Families First in Detroit,

Michigan.
Received 6-6-1998
Revised & Resubmitted 1-18-1999
Accepted 5-10-1999

Myrick, R., & Erney, T. (1985). Youth helping youth: Becoming a peerfacilitator.
Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corporation.

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, intervention, 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

development and the family 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.

242

Family

Relations

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Tue, 05 Apr 2016 01:50:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms