Search results

AbstractThis study compared the empathic accuracy of men and women who had perpetrated physical intimate partner violence with that of partners in nonviolent but distressed and nonviolent and nondistressed relationships. Examined was the empathic accuracy (a) of partners for one another's thoughts and feelings during a relationship problem discussion in the laboratory, (b) of partners' empathic accuracy for each other with the empathic accuracy of objective observers who watched the couples' interactions, and (c) the males' empathic accuracy for their female partner to their empathic accuracy for female strangers. No significant group differences were found among women's empathic accuracy, but the data suggest that violent men exhibit poor empathic accuracy when attempting to understand their female partner's thoughts and feelings.

Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to behaviorally validate the Rudeness Scale (RS), a self-report measure of the propensity to verbally abuse strangers, using both a retrospective design (Study 1) and a prospective design (Study 2).


Design/methodology/approach
– In Study 1, participants (n=280) completed an online survey that contained the RS and a retrospective checklist measure that assessed how often they had engaged in specific confrontational behaviors during the past year. In Study 2 (n=109), participants first completed an online survey that contained the RS and then later completed an experimental session in which they received, and immediately responded to, rude instant messages sent by another "participant."


Findings
– In Study 1, a multiple regression analysis revealed that scores on the RS were positively associated (β=0.39) with scores on the retrospective checklist measure of ugly confrontational behaviors. In Study 2, a multiple regression analysis revealed that scores on the RS were positively associated (β=0.30) with the level of "retaliatory" rude behavior the participants displayed in their instant messaging conversation. Together, these findings reveal that people with high RS scores are more likely, first, to have acted in offensive and confrontational ways in the past (Study 1), and second, to act this way in the present (Study 2).


Originality/value
– Although previous studies have provided evidence for the convergent validity of the RS and established a preliminary personality profile of rude individuals, the present studies are the first to explore the behavioral validity of the scale.

AbstractIn four studies, we obtained evidence for the reliability and validity of a 21‐item scale designed to measure a new theoretical construct: individual differences in the motivation to acquire relationship‐threatening information (hereafter, MARTI). Study 1 provided evidence for the MARTI scale's reliability and discriminant validity, revealing that it was reliable and not significantly correlated with measures of the Big Five personality traits, adult attachment styles, or more general social orientations. Studies 2 and 3 provided evidence for the scale's convergent and discriminant validity, showing that dating partners with higher MARTI scores (i.e., those who were more motivated to acquire relationship‐threatening information) scored lower in relational trust and reported engaging in more "suspicion behaviors." Study 4 provided behavioral evidence for the scale's predictive validity, revealing that (a) dating partners with higher MARTI scores were more likely to break up within 5 months, and (b) the breakup rate was most pronounced for dating partners who scored higher on the scale and who also reported being less close. We discuss how this new construct and measure can be used to study important relationship dynamics.
We can't go on together With suspicious minds.
‐ Lines from the 1969 Elvis Presley hit

AbstractThe present study examined the similarities and differences in couples' interactive behavior and interaction‐based cognition that emerged in comparisons of conflict and support interactions in marriage. In a laboratory experiment, 53 couples were randomly assigned to the conditions of a 2 (type of interaction: conflict vs. support) × 2 (initiator of interaction: man vs. woman) factorial design. Partners provided questionnaire data and participated in a joint interaction and video review task. The data revealed substantial behavioral similarities (i.e., some classes of validation/facilitation behaviors and neutral problem‐solving behaviors) as well as behavioral differences (i.e., some classes of invalidation/oppositional behaviors) between conflict and support interactions, controlling for levels of marital satisfaction. Partners' interaction‐based cognition (e.g., feeling understood, satisfied) was especially affected by classes of validation/facilitation behaviors and was consistently related to marital satisfaction. In broad terms, the impact of a particular behavior on partners' ongoing cognition did not depend on the interaction domain (conflict vs. support) in which the behavior occurred.

AbstractTwo studies were conducted to explore the reasons why replicable individual‐difference correlates of empathic accuracy have proved so difficult to find. In Study 1, we examined sources of variance in empathic accuracy data using the Social Relations Model (Kenny, 1988, 1994; Kenny & Albright, 1987; Malloy & Kenny, 1986). The results revealed substantial perceiver variance only in the type of research design in which a relatively large set of individual perceivers inferred the thoughts and feelings of the same set of target persons. In Study 2, we found evidence that even in this apparently optimal type of research design, the significant individual‐difference correlates of empathic accuracy were fewer and subject to more unexpected qualifications than the results of Davis and Kraus's (1997) meta‐analysis would suggest. So far, the "best candidate" predictor of empathic accuracy appears to be verbal intelligence, but it remains to be seen whether it and two other recently proposed predictors of interpersonal accuracy will survive the test of replicability.