Empathic Accuracy in Romantic Couples: A Video Recall Study of
Adolescents with Same and Other Sex Partners
Nancy Darling, Sara Clarke, Louisa Thompson & Alex J. Baker
Thanks to both the many participants who shared their lives with us and to the students who worked to
collect these data: Jessica Greenberg, Rebecca Noonan, David Perlman, Maura Selenek & Olivia Winter.
This poster can be downloaded from http://oberlin.edu/faculty/ndarling/lab/ead.htm.
Protocol:
In these data, ratings of individual video segments were nested within individuals who were nested within dyads. Hierarchical
linear models (HLM) were used to analyze differences. Results are reported in Table 3 & 4 and presented graphically in Figure 1.
Males with male partners were most divergent from their peers, reporting less connection but
more conflict, sarcasm, frustration, and discomfort. Females with male partners showed the
opposite pattern, reporting the greatest closeness, but the lowest negative emotions.
Couples were invited to come to the observational laboratory. After introductions, each couple engaged in a
five minute video-recorded conversation in which they were asked to plan a vacation that they would take
together. Participants were asked to consider destination, cost, duration, and joint activities and to take the
task as realistically as possible. Participants then viewed the videorecorded interaction using a computer
driven Video Recall procedure (Welsh, Galliher, Kawaguchi, & Rostosky, 1999). The video was played back
to the participant in 30 second increments. At the end of each 30 second, participants were asked 7
questions about how they were feeling and 7 questions about how their partner was feeling during that
interval. Thus each individual rated themselves and their partners on 7 attributes for fourteen interaction
segments (196 ratings per person). In addition, participants completed a series of questionnaires about
demographic background information, attachment style, empathy, and conflict in close relationships.
association of partner and target reported emotions varied depending upon dyad type (p<.05). As can
be seen in Table 6 and Figure 2, the accuracy of males in male:male relationships is markedly higher
than in other groups for all emotions except for conflict.
Figure 2
Correlation of Parter-Reported and Target-Reported Emotion
Figure 1
.80
.70
Mean Emotion by Reporter
Measures:
•How connected do you feel to your partner? How connected does your partner feel to you?
•How conflictual were you being towards your partner? How conflictual was your partner being towards you?
•How frustrated are you with your partner? How frustrated is your partner with you?
•How sarcastic are you being towards your partner? How sarcastic is your partner being towards you?
•How uncomfortable are you? How uncomfortable is your partner?
3.00
Youth rated themselves and their partners on a 5 point scale from 0 (low) to 4 (high)
•Males in male:male couples were most accurate in assessing partners’
emotions, with the exception of conflict.
Sample
•When the small sample of male:male dyads was excluded:
2.50
Male with Male
2.00
Male with Female
Male with Male
Male with Female
.40
Female with Male
.30
Female with Female
.20
.10
Female with Male
1.50
.50
Female with Female
.00
1.00
0.50
Introduction
The majority of research on adolescent romantic relationships has focused on couples in which one partner is
male and the other female. This is particularly true in studying romantic relationships during adolescence and
early adulthood. Much of what we know about the functioning of romantic relationships, the differences
between interactions in romantic relationships and peer relationships and gender differences in the affective
tone of interactions and in relationship functioning confounds the gender of the target and the gender of their
partner.
During adolescence and early adulthood, many romantic relationships tend to be relatively short-lived (Brown,
Feiring, & Furman, 1999), particularly among youth who are college-bound or currently attending college. The
relative availability of other potential partners may be one factor contributing to adolescents’ and young
adults’ willingness to leave current partners when problems arise. On college campuses, which are heavily
populated with unmarried same-aged peers, the cost of terminating a relationship that has unsatisfactory
elements may be relatively low. Thus when conflict occurs, it may be easier for youth with still developing
intimacy and conflict resolution skills to terminate a relationship rather than to work it through.
Although this same normative trend in partner availability may hold for individuals who are interested in sameand other sex romantic partners, it is not true to the same extent (Diamond & Dube, 2002). Non-bisexual
sexual minority youth have relatively fewer potential partners than their peers. Due to the relative scarcity of
potential partners available to sexual minority youth, adolescents with same-sex partners experience a
relatively higher cost to terminating a current relationship.
We hypothesized that:
Biological gender:
38 males, 69 females, 1 physically androgynous individual
Gender identity:
37 males, 65 females, 5 transgender (1 male>female, 4 female>male), 1 androgynous
Sexual identity:
51 heterosexual, 7 gay, 14 lesbians, 19 bisexual, 17 ‘other’. The ‘other’ category included answers such as
‘queer’ or ‘pansexual’ as well as those who explicitly preferred not to classify themselves.
Table 1:
Distribution of Biological Sex by Dyad
Partner 2
Male
Partner 1
Male
Female
Androgynous
Total: 54 dyads
Female
Androgynous
19
1
0
4
30
0
fru
st
ra
te
d
fo
rta
bl
e
un
co
m
sa
rc
as
t ic
sarcasm
Mean
2.20
1.19
Reporter Sex
0.83
-0.57
Partner Sex
0.86
-0.52
Reporter * Partner Sex
-0.91
0.61
* Italicized coefficients are statistically significant (p ≤.05)
1.27
-0.96
-0.91
0.98
1.51
-1.08
-1.02
1.10
1.68
-1.06
-0.97
1.10
Table 4
Mean Emotion by Reporter and Partner Sex
29 male:female dyads where both members identify with their biological sex
18 female:female dyads where both members identify with their biological sex
4 male:male dyads where both members identify with their biological sex
1 female>male transgender: female ‘queer’ couple
1 female>male transgender: androgynous couple
1 male>female transgender: female ‘queer’ couple
connected
conflict
sarcastic
uncomfortable
frustrated
N
Sexual orientation by dyad:
Pairings of sexual orientation by had are described in Table 2 (below). Interestingly, only 26 of the 54 couples were
composed of individuals both of whom matched the ‘default’ classifications: 2 heterosexuals, 2 gay males, or 2
lesbians (see Diamond & Savin-Williams, 2002).
Gay
2
0
1
2
Lesbian Bisexual
Other
Female with
Female
2.94
0.69
0.53
0.89
0.41
38
Brown, B. B., Feiring, C., & Furman, W. (1999). Missing the Love Boat: Why researchers have shied away from adolescent romance. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown & C. Feiring (Eds.),
The development of romantic relationships in adolescence. Cambridge studies in social and emotional development. (pp. 1-16). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
Diamond, L. M., & Dube, E. M. (2002). Friendship and attachment among heterosexual and sexual-minority
Adolescence, 31(2), 155-166.
4
3
3
Female with
Male
3.17
0.56
0.34
0.39
0.22
32
References
Table 2:
Distribution of Sexual Orientation by Dyad
Partner 2
Heterosexual
Heterosexual
20
Gay
0
Lesbian
0
Bisexual
5
Other
6
Total: 54 dyads
Male with Male
2.23
1.17
1.49
1.65
1.23
6
Male with
Female
2.96
0.73
0.58
0.77
0.40
30
youths: Does the gender of your friend matter? Journal of Youth and
Diamond, L. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2000). Explaining diversity in the development of same-sex sexuality among young women. Journal of Social Issues, 56(2), 297-313.
4
2
2
conflict
frustration
sarcasm
1.80
0.82
0.52
-0.69
0.98
-0.47
-0.56
0.57
0.75
-0.42
-0.47
0.49
1.04
-0.63
-0.70
0.72
0.78
-0.19
-0.27
0.30
0.20
-0.05
0.03
0.00
0.20
0.08
0.21
-0.20
0.37
-0.28
-0.31
0.32
0.30
0.07
0.02
-0.22
0.46
-0.29
-0.33
0.35
Between Segment
frustration
Pairings of gender identity by dyad:
●
●
●
●
●
●
Mean
Reporter Sex
Target Sex
Reporter*Target Sex
conflict
connect
connect
uncomfortable
Between Individual Differences
uncom
fortable
Characteristics of the dyads are described below. Pairing of biological sex within dyads is reported in Table 1.
Partner 1
The latter hypothesis was based both on the greater experience sexual minority youth would have in
maintaining relationships and in more direct carryover of social skills from peer to romantic contexts.
Table 3
Results of HLM analyses predicting self-reported emotion
from own and partner biological sex
Dyadic characteristics:
• Individuals with same-sex romantic partner would experience more negative
emotions, but not fewer positive emotions, in their interactions.
•Individuals with same-sex romantic partners would be more accurate in their
perception of partner emotions.
Table 5
Results of HLM analyses predicting self-reported emotion .
from parter report of target emotion and own and partner biological sex
Individual characteristics:
Does the affective quality of interactions with romantic partners differ when
partners are of the same or of different sex?
Empathic accuracy is the ability to accurately assess others’ emotions (Ickes, 1993) and has the potential to
enhance the ability of romantic partners to build and maintain a close, intimate relationship.
t
Because of the sample population, classification of biological gender, identified gender, or sexual orientation were not
straightforward. These problems were magnified when we moved to the classification of dyads.
The current study addresses two questions:
Does the accuracy of adolescents’ judgments of their partners’ emotions
differ depending upon whether their partners are of the same or of a different
sex than themselves?
co
nf
lic
Participants in the study ranged from 17-29, with at least one member of each dyad being a traditionally-aged college
student (18-23).
co
nn
e
•Males with female partners were relatively more accurate than women
at perceiving partners’ feelings of connection and sarcasm.
•Females with female partners were relatively more accurate at
perceiving partner conflict and frustration.
ct
ed
0.00
fru
st
ra
te
d
3.50
fo
rta
bl
e
The focus of these analyses is on adolescents’ ratings of themselves and their partners on five attributes:
.60
un
co
m
•Males in male:male couples reported the lowest feelings of connection
and the highest negative feelings. Females in male:female couples
reported the most connection and the lowest negative feelings.
Advertisements were distributed across campus and in campus newspapers. In addition, because we were
interested in recruiting couples that included sexual minority youth, recruitment announcements were sent to
organizations focusing on GLTB youth (e.g., Queer Alliance) and presentations were made to these groups.
Because of the very few gay male couples recruited, additional efforts were made to recruit gay male couples
through word of mouth, college organizations and social network contacts. Although many individual men
appeared willing to participate, none were currently involved with a partner for the required four weeks and
thus could not participate.
In each case, partner reports of emotions were associated with targets’ self-reported emotions. The
sa
rc
as
t ic
•Gender differences did emerge when one looked at the gender makeup of the
dyad.
Are you currently “dating” “together” or perhaps “seeing each other” or “romantically involved”?
Whatever you call it, you can participate!
Preliminary analyses were undertaken to examine whether the emotional qualities of interactions varied by dyad type. In these
analyses, self-reported emotional state was predicted from biological sex of the reporter, biological sex of the partner, and the
interaction of partner and reporter sex. The latter term tests for differences by dyad type. Biological gender was chosen as the
predictor for two reasons: theory and parsimony. Because all of the individuals in the study were raised in accordance to their
biological gender, it was thought that their learned social experiences would be more consistent with their biological sex than with
their identified gender. Second, the variety of gender identifies provided and the small number of each made this variable
untenable as a predictor.
t
•There were no gender differences in self-reported emotions or in empathic
accuracy.
Romantically involved late adolescent couples were recruited from two liberal arts colleges. To restrict age
range, at least one member of each couple was required to be a traditionally aged college student (18-23)
and the couple must have been together for at least four weeks. Recruitment posters were designed to
reflect the complexities of how adolescents talk about their romantic relationships and to be inclusive of
sexual minority youth. For example, one poster stated:
ct
ed
Results indicate that:
Do the emotional qualities of the interaction vary by sex of self, partner, and
dyad type?
In order to assess empathic accuracy, self-reported emotion of the target partner was predicted from partner reports of the
target partners’ emotions. Biological sex of reporter and target and the interaction of reporter and target sex predicted
between-person differences in targets’ emotion. Partner reports were used to predict target emotions. Reporter sex, target
sex, and the interaction of reporter and target sex were used to predict differences in the association of partner and target
reports of emotions. Hierarchical linear models were used to allow for the nested nature of the data (segment within
individual within couple). Results of the HLM are reported in Table 5. Correlations between partner and target ratings of
emotions by dyad type are reported in Table 6 and presented graphically in Figure 2.
co
nn
e
Fifty-five late adolescent/early adult couples were videorecorded engaging in a 5
minute neutral vacation planning task that requiring negotiation and discussion. The
sample included 30 male:female couples, 4 male:male couples, 19 female:female,
and 1 female:androgynous couples (defined by biological sex). Using a video recall
procedure (Welsh & Dickson, 2005), individuals watched the recorded interaction
and reported their own and their partner’s emotions for each 30 second interval of
the recording.
Recruitment:
Does empathic accuracy vary by sex of self, sex of partner and dyad type?
Correlation Coefficient
Does the accuracy of adolescents’ judgments of their
partners’ emotions differ depending upon whether their
partners are of the same or of a different sex than
themselves?
Results
Mean (Range=0-4)
Does the affective quality of interactions with romantic
partners differ when partners are of the same or of
different sex?
Methods
co
nf
lic
Abstract
Ickes, W. (1993). Empathic Accuracy. Journal of Personality, 61, 587-610.
Welsh, D. P., Galliher, R. V., Kawaguchi, M. C., & Rostosky, S. S. (1999). Discrepancies in adolescent romantic couples' and observers' perceptions of couple interaction and their
relationship to mental health. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 645-666.
Partner Report
Reporter Sex*Partner Report
Target Sex*Partner Report
Reporter Sex*Target
Sex*Partner Report
Table 6
Correlation Of Partner-Reported &
Target Reported Emotion by Dyad Type
connected
conflict
sarcastic
uncomfortable
frustrated
N
Male with
Male
.47
.22
.48
.71
.69
6
Male with Female with
Female
Male
.27
.13
.35
.35
.38
.28
.04
.16
.04
.07
30
32
Female
with
Female
.14
.40
.31
.03
.12
38
Conclusion
Results partially confirmed the hypothesis. Interaction qualities vary by dyad type, with
males interacting with male partners reporting the lowest level of connection and the
highest level of negative emotions. Females interacting with male partners show the
opposite pattern, reporting the most connection and the lowest negative emotion. Males
with male partners were strikingly better at accurately reading all partner emotions save
for conflict. Females with female partners were more accurate at reading partners’
feelings of conflict and frustration.
Results concerning male:male couples should be viewed with caution both because late
adolescent dating male dyads were relatively unusual and because they were poorly
represented in this sample.