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

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

The current study sought to expand upon research on motivated empathic (in)accuracy by testing assumptions underlying the empathic accuracy model, namely if a perceiver's level of empathic accuracy is variable and might be associated with different outcomes depending the situation. More specifically, the model assumes that (a) the perception of threat in the thoughts/feelings of an interaction partner can result in a lower level of empathic accuracy, and (b) empathic accuracy can both improve and harm situational well-being on the personal and relationship level. These assumptions were tested in a laboratory-based study in which couples participated in a conflict interaction task and reported on their thought processes during a videoreview task. All participants also completed a similar standard-stimulus task. A shift in participants' motivation to be accurate to a motivation to be inaccurate in response to perceived threat could not be detected. Men's higher levels of empathic accuracy for non-threatening feelings of their female partner were predictive of an increased feeling of closeness in men.Women's higher levels of empathic accuracy for non-threatening feelings of the male partner were predictive for a better mood in women. A harmful effect of empathic accuracy for threatening thoughts/feelings on situational well-being was not found.

No abstract

Empathic accuracy research indicates that partners achieve only moderate success at reading each other's thoughts. The current study identifies specific patterns of online thought that contribute to empathic inaccuracy during conflict interactions. Married/cohabiting partners completed a conflict interaction and reported their own thoughts during video‐assisted recall of the interaction, also inferring the thoughts of the other partner. Content analysis of these online thoughts demonstrated a high degree of mindfulness about the process of communication, along with a perspective bias, in which partners tended to construe their own communication as constructive and the other partner's communication as avoidant and confrontational. Specific mind‐reading errors linked to both the thematic content and affective tone of online thought predicted lower overall empathic accuracy.