Psychological Femininity-Masculinity and Empathy as Determinants of Marital Quality*

Transcription

1 Maria Kaźmierczak University of Gdańsk Institute of Psychology Psychological Femininity-Masculinity and Empathy as Determinants of Marital Quality* Abstract One hundred and ninety-five Polish married couples participated in the research. The participants completed measures of psychological sex, empathy, and assessed their marital satisfaction. The results indicate that femininity favors a higher tendency to sympathize with others and to take their perspective, whereas masculinity lowers the tendency to acquire others negative emotions. Androgynous individuals are more similar to sex-typed couples in empathy. Personal distress is the mediator of a relationship between husbands masculinity (diminishing with age) and marital satisfaction. Three components of husband s or wife s empathy (empathic concern, personal distress and perspective taking) are also mediators of the relationship between androgyny and marital satisfaction. Introduction Psychological sex is defined as a pattern of psychological traits, such as femininity and masculinity formed from early childhood. Adults, as * This publication was prepared with the financial support of The Foundation For Polish Science (FNP). The study is a part of a larger scientific project concerning the role of empathy in marriage.

2 202 Maria Kaźmierczak a form of self-fulfilling prophecy, treat boys and girls in a different manner, these differences deriving from gender stereotypes. Consequently, children of both sexes develop their own gender schemes, which is also connected with the development of certain stereotypical personality traits (Bem, 1981). Empathy as a personal trait is related to psychological femininity. Davis and Kraus (1991) claim that psychological femininity makes a person more caring and more aware of others feelings and needs. Indeed, according to Hoffman (2003, p. 93) empathy is an affective reaction more suited to someone else s rather than one s own observer situation. Reiterating Hoffman, Davis (1994) emphasizes the multifaceted aspect of the empathy construct which encompasses affective aspects (empathic concern [EC] the tendency to experience feelings of warmth and compassion in relation to people affected by failure and personal distress [PD] the feeling of distress and discomfort in answer to the suffering of others), as well as cognitive (especially perspective taking [PT] a tendency to adopt spontaneously other people s psychological point of view). Karniol, Gabay, Ochion and Harari (1998) have concluded that EC and PT are positively related to psychological femininity, while psychological masculinity correlated negatively with PD; the influence of psychological sex was more substantial than the impact of biological sex. Multidimensional empathy and psychological sex are connected to marital quality. Research indicates that PT combined with EC creates favorable conditions for marital satisfaction, which is, in contrast, reduced by PD (cf. Davis & Oauthout, 1987; Kaźmierczak, 2005; Long & Andrews, 1993). As for the femininity masculinity dimension, Langis, Sabourin, Lussier and Mathieu (1994) concluded that the more feminine the wives, the more satisfaction they derive from the relationship, which may prove the significance of maintaining one s self-image as complying with social expectations connected with gender roles in order to maintain marital satisfaction. In the husband group, however, the results indicated that social norms seem to be more flexible in the case of men, i.e., higher masculinity and femininity factors were both conducive to a heightened masculine

3 Psychological Femininity-Masculinity and Empathy as Determinants satisfaction from a relationship. Additionally, the husbands marital satisfaction was positively linked to the level of femininity declared by their wives. When considering the type of psychological sex, Davidson and Sollie (1987) concluded that androgynous and sex-typed couples are indeed more satisfied with their relationship, compared to undifferentiated couples. Androgyny may indicate a greater diversity of self-image in such individuals and a more effective adaptability to a variety of social roles. It would also appear that displaying certain traits connected to femininity or masculinity facilitates the fulfillment of marital roles and allows for greater predictability of behavior. Research conducted in Poland seems to be leading to similar conclusions. Kuczyńska (2002) found that individual androgyny, or a relationship with a partner who is either sex-typed or androgynous, makes for increased satisfaction in the relationship. Plopa s (2004) research on students, in turn, indicates that androgynous people are the most willing to enter into marriage, especially based on partnership. The aim of this research was to check whether empathy plays a mediating role in the relation between partners psychological sex and their marital satisfaction. The research aims to verify the results of analyses conducted previously in other cultures, taking into consideration the specifics of married life. As has been proved, psychological sex is a predictor of satisfaction in a relationship. Empathy, in turn, in its various aspects, is connected with psychological sex (as an example of gendered personality) and marital quality. Furthermore, empathy has been presented in some previous research as the mediator of linkages between psychological sex and other psychological variables (cf. Lengua & Stormshak, 2000). Therefore, it was expected that femininity would connect with a greater level of empathic concern and perspective taking, while masculinity would favor a lower level of personal distress, this personal distress being the only factor adversely influencing marital satisfaction. The differences in the level of empathy displayed constitute an additionally interesting aspect (cf. Karniol et al., 1998), both when it comes to the similarity of empathy displayed by partners (cf. Gaunt, 2006) and the marital satisfaction of people of different

4 204 Maria Kaźmierczak psychological sex types. At the same time, it was expected that spouses of psychological sex types linked to a higher femininity (feminine and androgynous) would display a greater empathic intensity (EC and PT), with the greatest intensity among female partners. Moreover, the analyses focused predominantly on partner androgyny in view of its abovementioned favorable role in the functioning of a marriage. Additionally, the analyses considered the age of the participants, as Hyde, Krajnik and Skuldt-Niederberger (1991) have proved that people become more feminine with age. Method Participants One hundred and ninety-five couples took part in the study, all participants being both Caucasian and Polish. The average female age was 36,7 (SD = 10,7 yrs.), and the average male 39,2 (SD = 11,1 yrs.). The medium duration of marriage was 14,2 years. Measures 1. The Psychological Sex Inventory (IPP) by Kuczyńska (1992) based on the well-known Bem measure BSRI (Bem, 1974) was used. The inventory is comprised of 35 adjectives (15 femininity [Kuder-Richarson-20 coefficient = 0,79], 15 masculinity [Kuder-Richardson coefficient = 0,78] and 5 neutral) to which one has to answer on a 5-point Likert scale; from I am not like it at all to This is exactly what I am like. Creating four gender role classifications is possible: androgynous high level of femininity and masculinity; sex-typed high femininity and low masculinity for women, high masculinity and low femininity for men; cross-sex-typed high masculinity and low femininity for women, low masculinity and high femininity for men; undifferentiated low femininity and low masculinity. The norms calculated by Kuczyńska for a Polish population were implemented.

5 Psychological Femininity-Masculinity and Empathy as Determinants Empathic Sensitivity Questionnaire (ESQ) by Kaźmierczak, Plopa & Retowski (2007), a paraphrase of Davis Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) was used. ESQ consists of three subscales defined as above: Perspective Taking (PT), (cognitive empathy), Cronbach s alpha: 0,74; Empathic Concern (EC), Cronbach s alpha: 0,78 and Personal Distress (PD), Cronbach s alpha: 0,78 (two affective aspects of empathy). 3. Assessing marital satisfaction. The participants answered the following question: How do you rate your married life so far? on a 7-point scale (from terrible to marvellous ). This general marital satisfaction measure had previously been employed in Polish research on large and varied groups of married couples (Plopa, 2004). Procedure Participants filled out the set of questionnaires. They were asked to answer the questions individually and return tests directly to the researcher or researcher s assistants. Results and Discussion Femininity, masculinity and empathy Independent-Samples T-tests were conducted, comparing women and men with a high and a low femininity/masculinity (using the median split method) as to the level of empathy displayed. In both women and men femininity is conducive to higher ET levels wives: mean (low femininity) = 39,42; SD = 4,92; mean (high femininity) = 42,25; SD = 5,17; t (186) = = -3,85; p < 0,001; d = 0,56; husbands: mean (low femininity) = 35,07; SD = 5,29; mean (high femininity) = 38,3; SD = 5,54; t (181) = 4,04; p < 0,001; d = 0,6, and higher PT levels wives: mean (low femininity) = = 31,37; SD = 4,4; mean (high femininity) = 34,39; SD = 4,59; t (186) = = 4,61; p < 0,001; d = 0,68; husbands: mean (low femininity) = 30,08; SD = 4,86; mean (high femininity) = 32,52; SD = 4,85; t (183) = 3,41;

6 206 Maria Kaźmierczak p < 0,01; d = 0,5. In turn, both in the wife and husband groups masculinity was not PD conducive wives: mean (low masculinity) = 25,55; SD = = 4,96; mean (high masculinity) = 23,37; SD = 5,09; t (183) = 2,94; p < < 0,01; d = 0,43; husbands: mean (low masculinity) = 23,21; SD = 4,9; mean (high masculinity) = 21,02; SD = 4,76; t (182) = 3,07; p < 0,01; d = 0,46. The aforementioned research conducted verifies the conclusions reached by Karniol et al. (1998). Those results are consistent with the analyses carried out by Aylon and Dainton (2004), who concluded that, regardless of their biological sex, people who are feminine and in romantic relationships are more expressive in communication with a partner, generally more open, supportive (giving advice) and engaged in communication. Next, the author considered the type of psychological sex factor in women and men and checked whether they differ as to the level of empathy and marital satisfaction displayed. A large majority of wives presented an androgynous or feminine psychological sex type (38% androgynous; 49% feminine; 5% masculine; 8% undifferentiated) therefore only the two largest groups of women were compared (such a significant discrepancy in female groups belonging to certain psychological sex types had been confirmed in previous Polish research; in Plopa s [2004] studies it was established that 42% of women were feminine; 46% androgynous; 7% masculine and 5% undifferentiated). Independent-Samples T-tests were conducted, comparing androgynous and sex-typed wives as to the level of their empathy and marital satisfaction. Feminine wives obtained higher scores than their androgynous counterparts on two dimensions of emotional empathy EC: mean (androgynous) = 40,14; SD = 5,24; mean (feminine) = 42,07; SD = 4,75; t (164) = 2,67; p < 0,05; d = 0,42 and PD: mean (androgynous) = 23,41; SD = 5,29; mean (feminine) = 25,24; SD = 5,07; t (164) = 2,26; p < 0,05; d = 0,35, which is consistent with the female gender stereotype (Deaux & Lewis,1985). No other significant differences were found. Next, One- Way ANOVA analyses were conducted in a group of husbands. Androgynous (so having high femininity scores) and feminine males displayed higher EC (compared to masculine males), F (3,183) = 6,07, p < 0,01 and

7 Psychological Femininity-Masculinity and Empathy as Determinants PT levels (compared to undifferentiated males), F (3,185) = 4,77, p < 0,01. Androgynous husbands seemed to be more satisfied than undifferentiated men, F (3,182) = 2,34, p < 0,10, which is consistent with former research. No other significant differences were found. Finally, couple similarity indicators relating to empathy were computed and, according to this variable, the two largest couple groups in this research androgynous and sex-typed (feminine females and masculine males) were compared. Euclidean Distances between profiles as the square root of the sum of squared differences between male and female scores in empathy, as well as Spearman s correlations between scores in male and female empathy (Gaunt, 2006) were computed. Difference-score-based analyses showed significant differences between androgynous and sex-typed couples: EC score (androgynous) = 3,48; SD = 1,77; score (sex-typed) = = 4,54; SD = 1,70; t (45) = 2,08; p < 0,05; d = 0,62; PD score (androgynous) = 3,29; SD = 1,81; score (sex-typed) = 4,27; SD = 1,50; t (45) = = 1,99; p < 0,10; d = 0,59. Profile-based similarity analyses indicated greater similarity of androgynous couples: PD score (androgynous) = = 0,44; SD = 0,40; score (sex-typed) = 0,23; SD = 0,29; t (44,6) = 2,14; p < 0,05; d = 0,64; PT score (androgynous) = 0,54; SD = 0,29; score (sextyped) = 0,39; SD = 0,31; t (45) = 1,72; p < 0,10; d = 0,51. Sex-typed couples differed more in their EC levels and were less similar in PD (at the level of tendency they differed more) and PT (tendency). Therefore, a high femininity and masculinity intensity in both partners erases to some degree sex differences concerning empathy. Empathy as a mediator of the relation between psychological sex and marital satisfaction Structural equation models (cf. Simsek, Veiga, Lubatkin, & Dino, 2005) were built with the aim of testing the mediating role of empathy in the relationship between psychological sex and marital satisfaction. Models presenting the factors of psychological sex, empathy and marital satisfaction were tested. The partner age factor was also considered in relation to the aforementioned changing intensity of femininity through-

8 208 Maria Kaźmierczak out a person s lifetime. These are therefore path models leading from the husband/wife age factor to marital satisfaction (of either partner). When models presenting femininity, masculinity or empathy of wives as marital satisfaction predictors for both the wives themselves and their husbands were considered, these models did not show good fit with the data. For wives satisfaction: RMSEA = 0,111; CFI = 0,898; for husbands satisfaction: RMSEA = 0,105; CFI = 0,905. The husband models demonstrated a good fit. For husbands satisfaction: RMSEA = 0,070; CFI = 0,948; for wives satisfaction: RMSEA = 0,073; CFI = 0,945. The models are presented in Figure 1. Figure 1. Empathy as a mediator of the relation between husbands masculinity and marital satisfaction *p < 0,05; **p < 0,01; ***p < 0,001

9 Psychological Femininity-Masculinity and Empathy as Determinants In the case of both wives and husbands satisfaction, a significant path leading from husband s age through husband s masculinity and PD has been observed. In other words, with age, husbands display a progressively lower masculinity level, which may create favorable conditions for higher results in the PD scale, which in turn, correlates negatively with the level of marital satisfaction of both partners. Finally, the question of androgyny and its role in the path model presented was addressed. The wife models demonstrated a good fit. For wives satisfaction: RMSEA = 0,084; CFI = 0,947; for husbands satisfaction: RMSEA = 0,075; CFI = 0,956. The selected significant paths are presented in Table 1. It can be stated that, with age, women become progressively less androgynous and their androgyny favors higher PT and lower PD intensity. In turn, wives PT has a positive effect on the marital satisfaction of both partners (tendency level in the case of husband satisfaction), in opposition to wives PD. Similar models for husbands age, psychological sex and empathy demonstrated a satisfactory fit. For husbands satisfaction: RMSEA = 0,084; CFI = 0,929; for wives satisfaction: RMSEA = 0,084; CFI = 0,947. However, a correlation between husbands age and their marital satisfaction through the factors of empathy and psychological sex was not established. Only at the level of tendency does husband androgyny, which decreases with age, connect with their EC (statistical tendency), which in turn has a positive influence on the level of the husbands marital satisfaction. The selected significant paths are presented in Table 1. With age, married couples become less androgynous (which in men could be also observed in the declining indicators of masculinity). It can be therefore stated that the results obtained differ from the conclusions of Hyde et al. (1991) and point to a progressively lower tendency to display typical gender attributes as time goes by. The results additionally point to a mediating role of emotional empathy personal distress through the effect of husbands masculinity on both partners marital satisfaction. What therefore emerges is that masculinity correlates negatively with PD and

10 210 Maria Kaźmierczak Table 1. Empathy as a mediator of the relation between the type of psychological sex and marital satisfaction Selected model paths Standardized estimate wife s age wife s androgyny 0,18 * wife s androgyny wife s PT 0,14 * wife s androgyny wife s PD 0,15 * wife s PT wife s satisfaction 0,19 * wife s PT husband s satisfaction 0,15 a wife s PD wife s satisfaction 0,17 * wife s PD husband s satisfaction 0,15 * husband s age husband s androgyny 0,17 * husband s androgyny husband s PT 0,16 * husband s androgyny husband s EC 0,14 a husband s EC husband s satisfaction 0,16 a husband s PD wife s satisfaction 0,20 ** husband s PD husband s satisfaction 0,19 * a p < 0,10; *p < 0,05; **p < 0,01 this relation is additionally strengthened by the participant s biological sex. Hence, one may risk the statement that the present conclusions are yet another attempt at clarifying the results of Langis et al. (1994) husbands femininity directly favors marital satisfaction, while masculinity has a positive effect on satisfaction through reducing the tendency to acquire others negative emotions. The significance of husband personality so defined for both partners marital satisfaction could be a sign of the times, as men in Poland are encouraged to engage in inter-familiar activities (Kwiatkowska and Nowakowska, 2006) and the role of androgyny for the quality of a relationship increases. In the face of ongoing social changes connected with a growing social acceptance for a partnership-based marriage in Poland (CBOS, 2006), which assumes not only the share of professional and family duties but also a reciprocity of empathic display (Kaźmierczak, 2005), the search for psychological factors conducive to such changes is a valid one.

11 Psychological Femininity-Masculinity and Empathy as Determinants References Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender Schema Theory: A Cognitive Account of Sex Typing. Psychological Review, 88, 4, Davidson, B., Sollie, D. L. (1987). Sex-role Orientation and Marital Adjustment. Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 1, Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy. A Social Psychological Approach. Madison, W: Brown & Benchmark Publishers. Davis, M. H., Kraus, L. (1991). Dispositional Empathy and Social Relationships. Advances in Personal Relationships, 3, Davis, M. H., Oathout, H. A. (1987). Maintenance of Satisfaction in Romantic Relationships: Empathy and Relational Competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 2, Deaux, K., Lewis, L. L. (1984). Structure of Gender Stereotypes: Interrelationships Among Components and Gender Label. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 5, Gaunt, R. (2006). Couple Similarity and Marital Satisfaction: Are Similar Spouses Happier? Journal of Personality, 74, 5, Hoffman, M. L. (2003). Empathy and Moral Development. Implications for Caring and Justice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hyde, J. S., Krajnik, M., Skuldt-Niederberger, K. (1991). Androgyny Across the Life Span: A Replication and Longitudinal Followup. Developmental Psychology, 27, 3, Karniol, R., Gabay, R., Ochion, Y., Harari, Y. (1998). Is Gender or Gender-role Orientation a Better Predictor of Empathy in Adolescence? Sex Roles. A Journal of Research, 39, 1/2, Kaźmierczak, M. (2005). Empatia a jakość relacji interpersonalnych w związku małżeńskim (Empathy and the Quality of Interpersonal Relations in Marriage). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Gdańsk: University of Gdańsk. Kaźmierczak, M., Plopa, M., Retowski, S. (2007). Empathic Sensitivity Questionnaire. Przegląd Psychologiczny (Review of Psychology), 50(1), 9 24.

12 212 Maria Kaźmierczak Kuczyńska, A. (1992). Płeć psychologiczna. Podstawy teoretyczne, dane empiryczne oraz narzędzie pomiaru (Psychological Sex: Tool of Measurement, its Theory and Empirical Data). Przegląd Psychologiczny (Review of Psychology), 35, 2, Kuczyńska, A. (2002). Płeć psychologiczna idealnego i rzeczywistego partnera życiowego oraz jej wpływ na jakość realnie utworzonych związków (Type of Gender Schema of Ideal and Real Life Partner and Its Influence on the Quality of Formed Relationships). Przeglad Psychologiczny (Review of Psychology), 4, Kwiatkowska, A., Nowakowska, A. (2006). Mężczyzna Polski: psychospołeczne czynniki warunkujące pełnienie ról zawodowych i rodzinnych (The Polish Man: Psychosocial Determinants of Work and Family Roles). Białystok: Wyd. WSE. Langis, J., Sabourin, S., Lussier, Y., Mathieu, M. (1994). Masculinity, Femininity, and Marital Satisfaction: An Examination of Theoretical Models. Journal of Personality, 62, 3, Lengua, L. J., Stormshak, E. A. (2000). Gender, Gender Roles, and Personality: Gender Differences in the Prediction of Coping and Psychological Symptoms. Sex Roles, 43, 11/12, Long, E. C., Andrews, D. W. (1990). Perspective Taking as a Predictor of Marital Adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1, Plopa, M. (2004). Psychologia rodziny. Teoria i badania (Psychology of Family. Theory and Research). Elbląg: Wyd. EUH-E. Public Opinion Research Center (2006). Reproductive Needs and the Preferred and Actual Family Model. Retrieved June 15, 2008, from: 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, 1,