RESEARCH PAPER
Dyadic empathy in Polish samples: validation of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index for Couples
| 1 | Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland |
| 2 | Institute of Psychology, University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland |
Submission date: 2020-12-07
Final revision date: 2021-01-18
Acceptance date: 2021-01-19
Online publication date: 2021-02-12
Publication date: 2021-12-01
Current Issues in Personality Psychology 2021;9(4):354–365
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
the role of personality in interpersonal relations and social behaviorsindividual differencespersonality and behavior dynamicsquality of life and well being
ABSTRACT
Background:
Empathy as a multidimensional construct is considered a basis of satisfying intimate relationships. The role of other-oriented focus in empathizing with a partner has been highlighted. The Interpersonal Reactivity Index for Couples (IRIC) measures emo-tional and cognitive empathy displayed in the context of a romantic relationship and expressed towards the partner.
Participants and procedure:
A total sample of 2339 individuals in intimate relationships (including 1006 couples) participated in the research. Three studies are presented on adaptation of the IRIC to Polish in the context of participants’ emotional and relational functioning.
Results:
The two-factor structure of the measure was confirmed. However, the specific content of two factors was modified to better fit the data. A reliable and valid measure of empathic tendencies in couples has been obtained. Emotional dyadic empathic concern and cognitive dyadic perspective taking were associated with general emotional and cognitive empathy as well as with relation-ship satisfaction. Correlations with emotional contagion, stress and attachment were also explored.
Conclusions:
The IRIC is a short, reliable and valid measure of empathic tendencies in couples to be easily implemented in research and prac-tice. Personal traits of both partners should be seen as predictors or correlates of dyadic empathy. The presented research results might be applied to the design of interventions and programs increasing quality of romantic relationships.
Empathy as a multidimensional construct is considered a basis of satisfying intimate relationships. The role of other-oriented focus in empathizing with a partner has been highlighted. The Interpersonal Reactivity Index for Couples (IRIC) measures emo-tional and cognitive empathy displayed in the context of a romantic relationship and expressed towards the partner.
Participants and procedure:
A total sample of 2339 individuals in intimate relationships (including 1006 couples) participated in the research. Three studies are presented on adaptation of the IRIC to Polish in the context of participants’ emotional and relational functioning.
Results:
The two-factor structure of the measure was confirmed. However, the specific content of two factors was modified to better fit the data. A reliable and valid measure of empathic tendencies in couples has been obtained. Emotional dyadic empathic concern and cognitive dyadic perspective taking were associated with general emotional and cognitive empathy as well as with relation-ship satisfaction. Correlations with emotional contagion, stress and attachment were also explored.
Conclusions:
The IRIC is a short, reliable and valid measure of empathic tendencies in couples to be easily implemented in research and prac-tice. Personal traits of both partners should be seen as predictors or correlates of dyadic empathy. The presented research results might be applied to the design of interventions and programs increasing quality of romantic relationships.
REFERENCES (48)
1.
Batinic, B., Wolff, H. G., & Haupt, C. M. (2008). Construction and factorial structure of a short version of the Trendsetting Questionnaire (TDS-K): a cross-validation using multigroup confirmatory factor analyses. Eu-ropean Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24, 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5....
2.
Batson, C. D. (2009). These things called empathy: Eight related but distinct phenomena. In J. Decety & W. Ick-es (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 16–31). MIT Press.
3.
Bernstein, R. E., Laurent, S. M., Nelson, B. W., & Laurent, H. K. (2015). Perspective‐taking induction mitigates the effect of partner attachment avoidance on self-partner overlap. Personal Relationships, 22, 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.1....
4.
Busby, D. M., & Gardner, B. C. (2008). How do I analyze thee? Let me count the ways: Considering empathy in couple relationships using self and partner ratings. Family Process, 47, 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545....
5.
Busby, D. M., Holman, T. B., & Niehuis, S. (2009). The association between partner- and self-enhancement and relationship quality outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 449–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741....
6.
Busby, D. M., Holman, T. B., Taniguchi, N. (2001). RELATE: Relationship evaluation of the individual, family, cultural, and couple contexts. Family Relations, 50, 308–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741....
7.
Chopik, W. J., O’Brien, E., & Konrath, S. H. (2017). Differences in empathic concern and perspective taking across 63 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48, 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002202....
8.
Coutinho, J., Beiramar, A., Silva, C., Lema, A., Lima, V., Grace, R., Oliveira-Silva, P., Gonçalves, Ó., & Sampaio, A. (2015). Evidências de validade da versão portuguesa do Índice de Reatividade Interpessoal para Casais [Validity evidence of the Portuguese version of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index for Couples]. Avaliação Psicológica, 14, 309–317.
9.
Coutinho, J., Oliveira‐Silva, P., Fernandes, E., Gonçalves, O. F., Correia, D., Perrone Mc‐Govern, K., & Tschacher, W. (2019). Psychophysiological synchrony during verbal interaction in romantic relationships. Family Pro-cess, 58, 716–733. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.1....
10.
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Se-lected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
11.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3....
12.
Davis, H. M. (2004). Empathy: Negotiating the border between self and other. In L. Z. Tiedens & C. W. Leach (Eds.), The social life of emotions (pp. 19–42). Cambridge University Press.
13.
Davis, M. H. (2006). Empathy. In J. E. Stets & J. H. Turner (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of emotions (pp. 443–466). Springer.
14.
Doherty, R. W. (1997). The Emotional Contagion Scale: a measure of individual differences. Journal of Non-verbal Behavior, 21, 131–154. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024....
15.
Eisenberg, N. (2009). Empathy-related responding: Links with self-regulation, moral judgment, and moral be-havior. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 129–148). American Psychological Association.
16.
Eisenberg, N., & Eggum, N. D. (2009). Empathic responding: Sympathy and personal distress. In J. Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 71–83). MIT Press.
17.
Finkel, E. J., Cheung, E. O., Emery, L. F., Carswell, K. L., & Larson, G. M. (2015). The suffocation model: Why marriage in America is becoming an all-or-nothing institution. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 238–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/096372....
18.
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-....
19.
Francis, Z., Sieber, V., & Job, V. (2019). You seem tired, but so am I: Willpower theories and intention to provide support in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37, 738–757. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540....
20.
Guzmán González, M., Péloquin, K., Lafontaine, M. F., Trabucco, C., & Urzúa, A. (2014). Evaluación de la empatía diádica: Análisis de las propiedades psicométricas del Índice de Reactividad Interpersonal en Parejas (IRIC-C) en contexto chileno [Measuring dyadic empathy: Analysis of the psychometrics properties of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index of Couples (IRIC-C) in the Chilean context. Psicoperspectivas, 13, 156–164.
21.
Hoffman, M. L. (2003). Empathy and moral development. Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge Uni-versity Press.
22.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/107055....
23.
Ickes, J., Stinson, L., Bissonnette, V., & Garcia, S. (1990). Naturalistic social cognition: Empathic accuracy in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 730–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3....
24.
Juczyński, Z., & Ogińska-Bulik, N. (2009). PSS-10 – Skala odczuwanego stresu. Narzędzia pomiaru stresu i ra-dzenia sobie ze stresem [PSS-10 – Perceived Stress Scale. Measurement tools of stress and coping]. Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych PTP.
25.
Kagitcibasi, C. (1999). The model of family change: a rejoinder. International Journal of Psychology, 34, 15-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075....
26.
Kaźmierczak, M. (2013). Postrzegana empatia partnera jako predyktor satysfakcji ze związku romantycznego [Perceived partner’s empathy as a determinant of satisfaction with a romantic relationship]. Psychologia Społeczna, 4, 435–447.
27.
Kaźmierczak, M., Plopa, M., & Retowski, S. (2007). Skala Wrażliwości Empatycznej [Empathic Sensitiveness Scale]. Przegląd Psychologiczny, 50, 9–24.
28.
Kaźmierczak, M., & Rostowska, T. (2010). Percepcja relacji małżeńskich i poziom empatii partnerów a jakość życia [Perception of marital relations and spouses’ empathy]. In T. Rostowska & A. Peplińska (Eds.), Psy-chospołeczne aspekty życia rodzinnego (pp. 110–124). Difin.
29.
Kaźmierczak, M., & Pawlicka, P. (2019). SER-PD – Polish adaptation of the My Emotions Scale for the assess-ment of parents’ emotional reactions to child’s crying. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 7, 53–63. https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2....
30.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 472–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2....
31.
Kimmes, J. G., & Durtschi, J. A. (2016). Forgiveness in romantic relationships: The roles of attachment, empa-thy, and attributions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 42, 645–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.1....
32.
Kimmes, J. G., Edwards, A. B., Wetchler, J. L., & Bercik, J. (2014). Self and other ratings of dyadic empathy as predictors of relationship satisfaction. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 42, 426–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/019261....
33.
Konrath, S. H., O’Brien, E. H., & Hsing, C. (2011). Changes in dispositional empathy in American college stu-dents over time: a meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 180–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/108886....
34.
Levesque, C., Lafontaine, M. F., Caron, A., Flesch, J. L., & Bjornson, S. (2014). Dyadic empathy, dyadic coping, and relationship satisfaction: a dyadic model. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 10, 118–134. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v....
35.
Long, E. C., & Andrews, D. W. (1990). Perspective taking as a predictor of marital adjustment. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 59, 126–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3....
36.
Lubiewska, K., Głogowska, K., Mickiewicz, K., Wojtynkiewicz, E., Izdebski, P., & Wiśniewski, C. (2016). The Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised questionnaire: Factorial structure, reliability and a short version of the scale in a Polish sample. Psychologia Rozwojowa, 1, 49–63.
37.
MacCullum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-9....
38.
Muise, A., Kim, J. J., Impett, E. A., & Rosen, N. O. (2017). Understanding when a partner is not in the mood: Sexual communal strength in couples transitioning to parenthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 1993–2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508....
39.
Obama, B. (2006). The audacity of hope: Thoughts on reclaiming the American Dream. Canongate.
40.
Péloquin, K., & Lafontaine, M. F. (2010). Measuring empathy in couples: Validity and reliability of the interper-sonal reactivity index for couples. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/002238....
41.
Péloquin, K., Lafontaine, M. F., & Brassard, A. (2011). A dyadic approach to the study of romantic attachment, dyadic empathy, and psychological partner aggression. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 915–942. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540....
42.
Plopa, M., Kaźmierczak, M., & Karasiewicz, K. (2019). The quality of parental relationships and dispositional empathy as predictors of satisfaction during the transition to marriage. Journal of Family Studies, 25, 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/132294....
43.
Ramezani, A., Ghamari, M., Jafari, A., & Aghdam, G. F. (2019). The effectiveness of a ToM training program in promoting empathy between married couples. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 19, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/153326....
44.
Rosen, N. O., Mooney, K., & Muise, A. (2017). Dyadic empathy predicts sexual and relationship well-being in couples transitioning to parenthood. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 43, 543–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/009262....
45.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5-12 (Beta). Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.
46.
Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. (2005). Modeling the multilevel determinants of top management team behavioral integration. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 69–84. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.20....
47.
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Foster, C. A. (2003). Parenthood and marital satisfaction: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 65, 574–583. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741....
48.
Wróbel, M., & Lundqvist, L. O. (2014). Multidimensional versus unidimensional models of emotional contagion: the Emotional Contagion Scale in a Polish sample. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 2, 81-91. https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2....
Copyright: © Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk This is an Open Access journal, all articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.