hwy-ya.»
.31.
1

... u...
..

....r.....~..._.g. .
on. 5., : g .

.\ a: . 2. 3 .5
via. ”xx ‘21)“... \-
\ swing:

313.0...
.1 . ‘
.x. {l
‘29. .C:
n: #2..

$125!;
‘ In
t v.

2.3.1.1
n ‘ a t h.

 

UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I IIIIIIII II

3 1293 013996

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

CONNECTED SELF ORIENTATION, EMPATHY AND
RELATIONSHIP DYNAMICS IN ADULTS AND
THEIR COLLEGE AGED CHILDREN

presented by

SANDRA J EAN FRASSETTO

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M . A . degree in PSYC I10] 09y

as a impala

Major professor
EIIen A. Strommen

 

Date 4%! 7 /;;S-'

0-7639 ' MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE ll RETURN BOXto roman this chockout Irom your mood.
TO AVOID FINES Mum on or baton duo duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU I: An mm Adlai/Equal Opportunity Institution
Wan-9.1

CONNECTED SELI= ORIENTATION, EMPATHY AND
RELATIONSHIP DYNAMICS IN ADULTS AND
THEIR COLLEGE AGED CHILDREN
By

Sandra Jean Frassetto

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment Of the requirement
for the degree Of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department Of Psychology

1995

ABSTRACT
CONNECTED SELF ORIENTATION, EMPATHY AND
RELATIONSHIP DYNAMICS IN ADULTS AND
THEIR COLLEGE AGED CHILDREN
By

Sandra Jean Frassetto

This study was designed to look at empathy and its relationship to a self-
orientation referred to as the Connected Self. Levels of empathy and
connected self were examined in a group of college students and their
parents. Higher levels Of empathy and connected self were found in females
for both mothers and their daughters. For individuals, mothers, fathers, sons
and daughters affective components Of empathy and connected self were
found to be related. Opposite sex parental effects were found with mothers’
and sonS’ scores on affective and cognitive components of empathy being
correlated as well as fathers’ and daughters’ levels Of connection and
separate self. When fathers’ levels Of empathy and connection were
combined it was found to be related to their college aged sons levels Of

affective empathy.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................... iii
INTRODUCTION .......................................... 1
Purpose Of Present Study ............................... 1
Empathy ............................................ 4
Definition of Empathy .................................. 5
Development of Empathy ................................ 8
Davis .............................................. 9
Sex Differences in Empathy ............................. 11
Socialization of Empathy .............................. 13
Empathy in Children and Parents ......................... 15
Relationship Self ..................................... 18
Empathy Relating to Sense Of Self ........................ 19
Summary .......................................... 22
STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESES ............................. 23
METHODOLOGY ......................................... 26
Participants ......................................... 26
Procedure .......................................... 27
Instruments ......................................... 28
Empathy ........................................... 29
Relationship Self ..................................... 31
RESULTS .............................................. 34
Preliminary Analyses .................................. 34
Analyses Related to Predictions .......................... 36
Basic Statistics ...................................... 39
Reliability and Validity Of Empathy Measure (IRI) ............. 39
Reliability Of Connected Self Measure (RSI) ................. 42
Empathy Scales ..................................... 43
Empathy Scale Patterns between Parents and Children ........ 46
Connected Self Scales (RSI) ............................ 47
Connected Self (RSI) Scale Patterns between Parents and Children 47
Overall Patterns Between Empathy and Connected Self ........ 48
WIthin-Family Comparisons for Empathy and Connected Self . . . . 50
Maternal and Child Levels Of Empathy and Connected Self ...... 50

Paternal and Child Levels Of Empathy and Connection ......... 51

Empathy Patterns in Triads ............................. 52
Connected Self Patterns in Triads ........................ 52
Connected Self and Empathy Patterns in Triads .............. 53
Additional Analyses ................................... 53
DISCUSSION ............................................ 55
Sex Differences (IRI) .................................. 55
Empathy Patterns Between Parents and Children ............. 56
Sex Differences (RSI) ................................. 58
Connected Self Patterns between Parents and Children ........ 58
Empathy and Connected Self ............................ 61
Maternal and Child Levels Of Empathy and Connection ......... 61
Paternal and Child Levels Of Empathy and Connection ......... 62
Empathy Patterns in Triads ............................. 62
Connected Self and Empathy Patterns in Triads .............. 63
Conclusion ......................................... 64
APPENDICES
A. Descriptive Information: Students ....................... 67
8. Descriptive Information: Parents ........................ 70
C. Parent’s Letter .................................... 72
D. Student’s Instructions ............................... 74
E. Davis Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) ................. 76
F. Relationship Self Inventory (RSI) by Scales ............... 79
G. Student-Parent Study: Post-Session Feedback ............. 84
H. Student Educational Presentation ...................... 86
l. RSI Correlation Coefficients by Group .................... 88
J. lRl Correlation Coefficents Parents and Children ............ 90
K. RSI Correlation Coefficents Parents and Children ........... 92
L. Anovas for Significant Differences between Waves .......... 94
REFERENCES ........................................... 97

iv

TABLE 1.
TABLE 2.

TABLE 3.

TABLE 4.
TABLE 5.

TABLE 6.

TABLE 7.

TABLE 8.

TABLE 9.

TABLE 10.

TABLE 1 1.

TABLE 12.

TABLE 13.

LIST OF TABLES

Means and Standard Deviations IRI Wave Differences . . . . 35
Means and Standard Deviations RSI Wave Differences . . . . 35

Parent’s Empathic Concern and Connected Self Score

(MOMHH, DADHH) .............................. 36
Parent’s Empathy Scores Combined (PEMP) ........... 38
Parent’s Connected Self Combined (PREL) ............. 38

Means and Standard Deviations Relationship Self Inventory
by Scale ...................................... 40

Means and Standard Deviations Davis Interpersonal
Reactivity Index ................................. 41

Coefficient Alphas for Relationship Self Inventory by
Group, Fathers, Sons, Mothers and Daughters .......... 42

Coefficient Alphas for Davis Interpersonal Reactivity
Index by Group, Fathers, Sons, Mothers and Daughters . . . 43

Correlation Coefficients for Daughters’ Interpersonal
Reactivity Index ................................. 44

Correlation Coefficients for Sons’ Interpersonal
Reactivity Index ................................. 45

Correlation Coefficients for Mothers’
Interpersonal Reactivity Index ....................... 45

Correlation Coefficients for Fathers’ Interpersonal
Reactivity Index ................................. 45

TABLE 14.

TABLE 15.

TABLE 16.

TABLE 17.

TABLE 18.

Correlation Coefficients for Daughters’ Interpersonal

Reactivity Index and Relationship Self Inventory ......... 45

Correlation Coefficients for Sons’ Interpersonal

Reactivity Index and Relationship Self Inventory ......... 49

Correlation Coefficients for Mothers’ Interpersonal

Reactivity Index and Relationship Self Inventory ......... 49

Correlation Coefficients for Fathers’ Interpersonal

Reactivity Index and Relationship Self Inventory .........

Fathers Levels Of Empathy and Connected Self
Effects on Son’s Levels of Empathy ..................

vi

50

52

be‘

YO

Ih:

Er

th

 

 

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of the Present Study

The study reported here was designed to examine the relationships
between empathy and separate and connected self orientation in college-age
young adults and their parents.

Traditional theories that look at identity and self development propose
that this process occurs through separation from others (Freud, 1946,
Erikson, 1950, Levinson, 1978, Mahler, 1975). There is an assumption in
these theories that a child in infancy does not differentiate processes initiated
by self from those processes/experiences initiated by the mother or caregiver.
From this theoretical basis it is proposed that as the children begin tO mature
and tO develop their own sense of self a process Of separation or pulling
away from the parent must occur. This merging and separation is generally
spoken Of in terms Of the relationship between the mother and the Child; the
relationship with the father and its importance in the child’s development Of
self is not addressed in these theories, though there is no reason to assume
different processes would be proposed.

Object relations theorists have discussed empathy in terms Of the

connection between parent and Child, and have related the emotional

p... A

 

 

 

 

ii

2

expression Of empathy is to the symbiotic merging between mother and child.
In this context, empathy in adults has been described as requiring a softening
Of ego boundaries and a regression to a less mature state of functioning. Like
identity theory, this theoretical approach assumes that separation for the
individual is more advanced or more developmentally mature; connection is
viewed in terms Of merging as a less mature or advanced state. According to
these perspectives, being separate and individuated are seen as being the
higher or more Optimal state in development.

Recent research suggests another way Of looking at the development
Of self and argues that it may be necessary to differentiate between two
modes Of self-organization or self description, connected self and separate
self. This theoretical perspective proposes that instead Of there being only
one path that an individual may take when developing a sense Of self there
may actually be two ways for the process to occur with both being considered
to be Optimal or developmentally mature. Some individuals may develop a
sense of self based on connection and relationships with others; for these
people, themes of care and compassion, relationships and connection to
others are core issues for the self. This has been referred as the connected
self. For others the road to the development Of the self may lie in separation,
and for them personal achievement, individual rights, justice and autonomy
are central issues which are core to their sense Of self. This perspective is

called the separate self.

COI

COI

99'

ca'

WC

Be

ell

en

SO

dlr

pf

WI

be

life

th

VC

re

 

3

The major purpose of this study was to test hypotheses derived from a
theoretical model concerning the role Of empathy in a person with a
connected-self orientation. Since a central feature Of self definition for a
connected person is through personal relationships and interactions with other
people, it follows that develOping and using attributes such as empathy which
can promote, strengthen, and allow relationships to function more smoothly
would be Of greater importance to a person with a connected-self orientation.
Because theories relate parents’ socialization and modeling to behavioral
effects in Children, we investigated the relationship between 1) the levels Of
empathy in children and their parents, 2) separate and connected
self-orientation in parents and children; and 3) the connections between these
dimensions.

TO provide the background for the study, a definition of empathy will be
proposed and a brief overview Of the components and dimensions Of empathy
will be reviewed. Then the relationship self will be discussed; and connections
between empathy and relationship self proposed. There is a large body Of
literature that deals with empathy from a clinical perspective, from a
psychodynamic orientation, and with the development and use Of empathy in
the Clinical relationship between Client and therapist. There is also a
voluminous literature that looks at the link between empathy and its

relationship tO social behavior such as altruism and peer relationships. Since

 

 

thes

IESE

foc
err
at

de

4

these Iiteratures are not directly relevant to this study, for purposes Of this
research and paper these areas will not be discussed any further.
Empathy

Empathy as an intricate and fascinating human emotion has been the
focus Of much research in psychology. M. Hoffman (1981) argues that
empathy is a universal neurologically-based human response which is present
at birth. He further states that empathy may be the biological basis for the
development Of altruism which he proposes has survival value for the species
as a whole since humans tend tO live in cooperative social units. Empathy is
considered to be the motivating factor for many prosocial acts as well as
being related to moral development (Hoffman, 1963, 1982b). Empathy has
also been proposed as an inhibiting component in the expression Of
aggression; promoting empathy development in delinquent adolescents has
been proposed as a method to reduce aggression and to increase role taking
capacity (Gibbs, 1985). Jordon (1984) describes empathy as a complex
process which is indicative of the individual’s level Of psychological
development and ego strength. For these later theorists the greater the
empathy the greater the ego strength and individuation, a position opposite to
the notion Of regression to a less developed state. Further connections have
been made by Surrey (1984) to a person’s potential for emotional closeness,

relatedness and the development Of empathy.

 

 

tl

 

 

Mnition Of Empathy

Definitions of empathy and methods of measurement vary considerably
from one study to the next. When giving the definition Of empathy it is
generally contrasted with sympathy. Both of these words have the Greek term
pathos or feeling as a root and, according to Webster’s (1984 edition)
sympathy refers to ”together feeling” as opposed to empathy which is defined
as "in feeling”. Therefore being sympathetic means that you have the ability to
Share another’s ideas or emotions and understand those feelings. In contrast
empathy refers to becoming one with the other person, having a much
stronger identification with their feelings and in fact, being able to experience
the same emotion that someone else is experiencing.

Goldstein and Michaels (1985) state that when being sympathetic the
person is more focused on their own emotions rather than the other persons’.
In contrast, empathy refers to an intellectual or emotional identification with
another person in a stronger more intense way, where you actually feel the
other person’s emotion as if it were your own. It involves at least these
features: role taking; awareness of the other’s affective state and situation;
the ability to read nonverbal cues; and communication Of caring about what
the other is experiencing (Goldstein and Michaels, 1985).

Among other definitions advanced by psychologists, Feshbach and Roe
(1968) propose a three component model Of empathy that involves both

affective and cognitive components Of empathy. These components include 1)

6

the cognitive ability to recognize the affective states Of others and to realize
that they are distinct from your own, 2) the more advanced cognitive skill that
allows an individual tO recognize the perspective or role Of another, and 3)
emotional responsiveness that is defined as the ability and the readiness to
experience the emotion which is being Observed. This third component, the
orientation toward feeling, is the one most frequently identified as being the
central element in the empathy construct. This is the communication Of caring
referred to by Goldstein and Michaels.

Nancy Eisenberg, who has done a great deal of research on empathy
and how it relates to children’s prosocial development, defines empathy as
the affective state that results from the awareness Of another’s state or
condition and is congruent with it (Eisenberg, 1987). This definition includes
both vicarious experiences of another’s state as well as the matching Of
affective states. Vicariously experiencing anothers state involves imagining
oneself in the same situation and assuming that the emotions elicited are
those that the other person is experiencing. For example with a mother who
shares the story Of losing a young child in a car accident to a group Of
mothers, the listeners experiencing an empathic response that involved a
vicarious experience would imagine themselves in the same situation and
picture what their own response would be. This process does not necessarily
involve the listener actually experiencing the emotion. A matching of affective

states is much more visceral in a sense and involves a person experiencing

 

 

 

 

 

Ihl

DE

8)

7

the same emotion as another. In the example above, this would involve a
person feeling the emotion Of sadness in response to seeing the other person
experience sadness when telling Of the loss Of her child.

Hoffman (1982b), in contrast, describes empathy as only a vicarious
affective response, in reaction to anothers’ situation. This affective response
is considered to be more appropriate to the other person’s Circumstance than
it is to one’s own circumstance. According to Hoffman, it is not necessary for
the Observer and the participant to have matching affective responses as
Eisenberg describes to label the reaction empathy. The operational definition
used in this study is similar tO Hoffman’s; empathy is a vicarious affective
state that is more appropriate to another’s Circumstance than one’s own.
Unlike Eisenberg this definition does not require that the affective states Of
observer and participant match but simply that the Observer be aware Of what
the participant is feeling.

A primary distinction made by empathy researchers is between the
affective and cognitive components Of the construct. The main focus until
fairly recently has been on the affective component since that is the one
which is the most easily Observed and measured. However, in current
research concerning the development Of cognitive abilities some theorists
argue that the cognitions must come prior to the actual behavior and that this
dimension is also an important component of empathy (Eisenberg, 1987).

Hoffman (1984) in contrast, argues that when an infant responds to another

 

 

infa
the

PNN
per:
Else
alsc

rest

devl
obs
GXp

Hfia

Alth
are
Shox
Sonn
of p,
be“A
Stan

reSp.

8

infants’ crying by crying itself, this response does not involve perception on
the part of the infant that it is separate and responding to another. He
proposes that the early precursors of empathy are primarily affective and that
perspective taking increases with age as the child becomes less egocentric.
Eisenberg and Strayer (1987) contend that perhaps even very young children
also may be able to make some distinction between their own affective

response and another’s.

Development Of Empathy

Hoffman (1982,1988) proposes that there are stages in the
development Of empathy. Stage One: Global empathy This is the behavior
Observed during the first year. This involves the infant matching an emotion
expressed by another with their own affective expression. For example if the
infant hears another infant crying, they also begin to cry. Stage Two:
Egocentric empathy This stage begins between 12 and 18 months.
Although the child has some awareness Of being separate from others they
are still unable to determine what would be comforting to another person
showing distress. At this level the Child will comfort another by giving them
something such as a blanket which they themselves find soothing. This level
Of perspective taking involves at least a minimal awareness Of the separation
between the self and other. Stage Three: Empathy for Another’s Feelings
Starting around 2 or 3 years Of age children notice others feelings, and

respond to them in increasingly less egocentric ways. They become more

 

 

con
Sta
late

mo

dlr
tel
all
dir
Ior
inc
Cc
die
the

CO

ab
fee

on:

9

competent at identifying emotions and better able to read more subtle cues.
Stage Four: Empathy for Another’s Life Condition During the period of
late childhood and adolescence, children become more able tO understand
more general life conditions and not just immediate situations. As their
understanding Of the world grows they come tO recognize and feel for others

in certain universal conditions such as poverty.

Delis.

The construct of empathy has traditionally been measured as a single
dimension, with no differentiation of affective and cognitive components in
terms Of measurement. In contrast to other researchers, Davis (1980)
attempts to examine both affect and cognition in empathy, manifested as four
dimensions which can be looked at separately. This allows the researcher to
look for specific elements in the empathy construct which may relate to other
individual characteristics or constructs. Davis breaks empathy down into four
components: perspective taking, fantasy, empathic concern, and personal
distress, each Of which is considered to be specific aspects contained within
the global concept Of empathy. Of these, Perspective Taking is the primary
cognitive component and Empathic Concern is the main affective component.
A person’s ability to fantasize about fictional situations has been related to the
ability to experience emotional reactions to others and to act on those
reactions with prosocial or helping behavior. Fantasy is also considered to be

one Of the cognitive dimensions Of empathy. Davis, using the measure he

III

 

 

 

 

 

dev

COI

anr

SCI

88

wt

Di

te

10

developed to examine the four components found the highest positive
correlations between Empathic Concern and Fantasy and Empathic Concern
and Perspective Taking for both males and females. The Personal Distress
scale is based on the idea that as a person develops they move from a
self-oriented reaction to another’s distress to a more other-oriented reaction
which involves concern and sympathy (Hoffman, 1977). The Personal
Distress scale involves measuring the individual’s level Of personal distress in
tense interpersonal situations. Personal Distress according to Davis is an
inherent part Of the emotional component Of empathy.

Davis argues that other researchers have in fact used items that tap
both the cognitive and emotional components Of empathy. He contends,
however, that other researchers have confounded those dimensions by
combining them in the testing and by adding all the scores together to create
one global empathy score. Davis believes that the cognitive and emotional
components Of empathy should be separated and looked at individually in
order to measure and predict influences on behavior. He also states that
perspective taking is generally confounded with social insight. Davis (1983)
also proposes that personal distress will decrease with age as the Child
becomes more proficient at identifying emotions and behaving in prosocial
ways which alleviate the feelings Of distress. Davis argues that a fully
empathic individual will have a high score in each dimension of his measure.

For the purposes of this study, Davis’s conceptualizations Of empathy will be

 

 

 

BCCE

child

(1)
(D
x

em;
and
Ler
pa;
bet
fer

ye

to

SI

SI

fc

a)

11

accepted and will be used to look at patterns Of empathy between parents

Children.

Sex Differences In Empathy

Whether or not sex differences are found in the measurement Of
empathy depends greatly Upon how the empathy construct is operationalized
and the method used for measurement Of the construct. Eisenberg and
Lennon (1983) did a review Of gender differences on empathy and found that
paper and pencil self-report instruments usually Show the largest discrepancy
between males and females. Paper and pencil instruments generally show
females with higher empathy scores than males. Research with Children 1
year or younger show higher levels Of global empathy in female infants as
measured by reflexive crying. These studies which measure the response of
a Child to another infant’s crying have been criticized by researchers who
found that varying the sex Of the infant used as a stimulus influences the
empathic response Of other children. Babies have been found to respond
more frequently to the crying of another infant who is the same sex. When
sex Of the Child used for the stimulus cry is controlled for, researchers have
found no gender differences in reflexive crying (Martin & Clark, 1982).
Research among Older children and adults that used facial/gestural or
physiological measures showed no gender differences and picture/story
procedures tend to show very small differences in empathy between males

and females. Eisenberg and Lennon. (1987) argue that the higher empathy

 

 

repc

toa

mor

The

aft:

I65

Tf

th

W

12

reported by females in the studies using verbal report measures may be due
tO a bias in reporting. Because Of differences in socialization, females may be
more likely to report feelings related to concern and care for another person.
They state that this difference may be an actual increase in the vicarious
affective response by females due to socialization or it may be a stereotyped
response, with both sexes reporting what they perceive is expected of them.
This is referred to as social desirability, a response bias. Social desirability is
the tendency to present oneself in ways which match the person’s view Of
what is socially desirable. According to this theory the response a person
makes may reflect their true response or may be based on the person’s
expectation Of what is acceptable. Males also may have the same emotional
response to a situation as females but not label it empathy since males have
not been socialized to label or express emotions in the same way that
females are.

Empathy research that exposes subjects to audio or video tapes meant
tO elicit an emotional response (eg. the person is in need) shows a mixed
pattern in terms Of sex differences. When the participants were asked to
report on feelings of compassion or care in relation to the tapes, one Of the
studies on adults (Archer, Foushee, Davis, & Aderman, 1979) found males
reporting more empathy than females. However a number Of other similar
studies found females reporting more empathy while still other researchers

have found no gender differences using the same methodology (Eisenberg &

 

 

Lenr
emp
fem;
stud
scor
high
pent
sub

sub

COI

Te)

\N

13

Lennon, 1983). Although there are mixed results in terms Of sex differences in
empathy, Lennon and Eisenberg (1987) report that overall most studies show
females scoring higher on empathy measures than males do. In the present
study, which uses self-report methods, it was expected that females would
score higher in empathy than males, both because females generally score
higher in empathy overall and also because the measure used is a paper and
pencil self-report one. Davis found females scoring higher on his empathy
subscales with the largest difference between sexes occurring on the fantasy

subscale (Davis, 1983).

Socialization Of Empathy

Parents have many opportunities to be models Of empathic and
connected behavior. They also have the ability and motivation to shape and
reward the Child’s behavior since socialization is considered to be one Of the
most important roles in parenting. Bandura (1963) argues that observing and
modeling or imitating parents’ behavior is one Of the primary methods by
which Children learn. He also states that the more power and attractiveness a
person has the more likely they are to become models. Parents tend to seem
very attractive and powerful to children thus making them obvious models for
behavior. According tO Bandura the process continues as the adults reinforce
the behavior that they approve Of in the Child.

The relationship between parents’ methods Of socialization and their

Children’s levels Of empathy have been examined by many psychologists.

 

 

Ba

Ihl

WE

cf

fo

8)

Bl

fe

th

hr

14
Based on his review of this literature, Martin Hoffman (1982) suggests that

the Child develops empathy through being socialized by the parents in five
ways. The first is through being exposed to experiences which allows the
child to experience many different emotions. This experience makes it easier
for the Child to Identify with another and to empathize since they have
experienced the same emotion. Second, the development of empathy can be
encouraged by socialization which directs the attention of the child to the
feelings Of others. Hoffman argues that this focus on internal states is learned
through the use Of inductive reasoning which asks the child to think about
how the other person felt in a particular situation or to actually put themselves
into the person’s place. This use Of induction by the parent focuses the child’s
attention on the negative or positive consequences of their actions for
someone. The third way in which parents may increase development Of
empathy in children, according to Hoffman, is through the use of role-taking
which will enhance the Child’s cognitive awareness Of others. The fourth
socialization technique is giving children a lot Of affection. \Nlth the child’s
own needs met, they are able to be more Open and responsive to others’
needs thus allowing for more empathic feeling. The fifth method is through the
parents modeling prosocial behavior and acting and speaking empathically
about other persons (Hoffman, 1982b).

Feshbach (1982) examined parental behaviors which were related to

increased empathy in their Children aged 6 to 8 years. She argues that

 

 

emp
posit
Fest
corn
COIII
rele<
daug
SOD!
encl
CDC-
198
part

Dan

In E
Witt
IOOI

reg

anc

Cor

15

empathy in girls is related to behavior by the mother which results in a
positive and nonconfining relationship between mother and daughter.
Feshbach found that higher levels Of empathy in girls was positively
correlated with maternal tolerance and permissiveness and negatively
correlated with maternal conflict, excessive control, punitiveness and
rejection. She did not find any paternal Childrearing practices which related to
daughters’ empathic responsiveness. The only relationship found between
sons and their fathers was an inverse relationship between the father’s
encouragement Of competitive behavior and empathy. The more the father
encouraged competition the lower the son’s empathy score was (Feshbach,
1982). Based on the above theories and research about the socializing effects
parents have on their children we expected to see some relationship between

parents’ and Childrens’ levels Of empathy.

Empathy in Children and Parents

The question arises Of how children and parents resemble each other
in empathy. Surprisingly little such research has been done, and none Of it
with families in which children were of college age. Nonetheless, it is worth
looking at studies with younger children for suggestions they may contain
regarding family patterns which may still persist in late adolescence. A study
by Barnett, King et al. (1980) measured empathy in 4-tO 6-year Old children
and their parents. The Feshbach and Roe (1968) measure was used which

consists Of showing the children narrated slide sequences of young children

 

 

 

58

yo

po

the

SC

1hr

SC

16

in situations intended to elicit emotions in the viewer such as happiness,
sadness and fear. Following each slide sequence the child is asked, "How do
you feel?" Each response is rated on a 0-2 point scale with a total Of 16
points possible. Each parent was asked to complete the Mehrabian and
Epstein (1972) paper and pencil empathy measure. The results showed that
the daughter’s empathy scores were positively correlated with the mother’s
scores but negatively correlated with the father’s scores. Mothers’ scores on
the adult scale (M = 41.92) were significantly higher than the fathers’ empathy
scores (M = 33.72). The boys’ and girls’ scores on the Feshbach and Roe
measure did not significantly differ (M’s = 7.43 and 7.00 respectively). An
interesting relationship was discovered when median splits were done to
separate the mothers and fathers into groups of high versus low scorers.
When four mother/father empathy combinations were examined in relation to
their children’s scores it was found that daughters with the mother high
empathy, father low empathy configuration had significantly higher empathy
scores than did daughters in any other groups. There were nO statistically
significant correlations between son’s empathy scores and any Of the parental
measures (Barnett, King, Howard & Dino, 1980). For the present study, in the
absence Of other research and despite the difference in developmental status
Of the Children, it was proposed that this pattern found in young Children and

their parents will also be found in college-aged daughters and their parents.

 

 

daugr
nonve
sodal
sunn\
thatl
by p;
sons
unse
othe
IBSI
les:
Ito
Int

IE

17

Why the differential impact of fathers and mothers on sons and
daughters? Some researchers have found females tO be better at reading
nonverbal signals and expressions of affect (Hall, 1978) and argue that this
social sensitivity may be "hardwired’ in for mothering and that this makes the
survival Of the infant more likely. Alternatively, L.W. Hoffman (1977) proposes
that these sex differences may be the result Of sex stereotyped expectations
by parents for their Children. She found that parents desire career success for
sons and want daughters tO be more proficient in social skills and tO be
unselfish, loving, attractive and well-mannered. This focus for daughters is
other-oriented where the main thrust for males is on the self. Other
researchers found that boys rated high in competitiveness were found tO be
less empathic than peers who are less competitive (Barnett, Matthews &
Howard, 1979). They speculate that focusing on self achievement may
interfere with the ability to pay attention to the needs Of others. This would
relate to the orientation Of being more separate than connected (see definition
in next section) and would support the theory that individuals higher in
empathy would be higher on Connected Self than Separate Self. Based on
the research looking at measurements Of parents’ and children’s empathy
scores, a stronger relationship was expected between the scores Of mothers

and daughters than between other parent-Child pairs.

18

Relationship Self

Identity development has historically been explained as proceeding
through a process Of separation from others (Freud, 1941; Erikson, 1950;
Levinson, 1978). Through this process Of separation it is theorized that an
individual develops a sense Of self as distinct from others and that the
normative path leads to autonomy and individuation. Viewing development
through this model, connection with others may be conceptualized only in
regressive forms such as dependency or as enmeshment, and may be seen
as an unhealthy and even a pathological developmental pathway. Gilligan
(1982) as well as other theorists has criticized these separation theories Of
identity development as incomplete and has proposed a complementary
pathway for healthy identity development based on connection and
relationships with others. Miller (1984), Surrey (1984) and their colleagues
speak Of self-in-relation; Gilligan distinguishes the care voice and the justice
voice in moral judgments and self description. In both cases, these
conception have as their foundation an orientation towards connection and
relationships as central to self. These later theorists began with a focus on
woman’s development and argue that the connected self orientation is more
Characteristic Of, though not exclusive to, women.

Gilligan further proposes three phases or manifestations Of the care
voice, subcategories which are distinguished by the meaning Of care for

others as well as the self. At the least mature level, the focus is on caring for

19

oneself because others will not or are unable to care. At the next level, the
care Of others has priority over self care. This is considered tO be the
stereotypic traditional feminine role. Finally, at the most mature level, care for
everyone including the self is equally important.

In contrast, the self orientation referred to as the separate self is based
on the development Of the self through separation, reciprocity as Opposed to
equality in relationships, individual achievement and is more characteristic Of,
although not exclusive to, men (Gilligan, 1982). In fact one finds both
orientations in both men and women, though the centrality Of the orientations

to the self differs for men and women.

Empathy Relating to Sense Of Self

A number Of theorists have implicated connection in the development
Of empathy. Theorists from the Stone Center propose that empathy is a
central process through which development Of a sense of self takes place and
that the connection between mother and daughter provides the clearest
example of this process. Alexandra G. Kaplan (1983) argues that empathy
develops over time in parent-child relationships, and that this is especially
salient in the mother-daughter relationship which focuses on the socialization
Of women to be caretakers. She further argues that this development
becomes a central part Of the woman’s sense Of self. Judith Jordon and Janet
L. Surrey (1983) propose that women are socialized to be attuned to

relationships and to develop empathy to facilitate this attunement. Judith

20

Jordon (1983) further states that characteristics which are useful in the
mothering/nurturing role such as empathy are encouraged in females while
these traits in males may be actively discouraged in the process of
socialization. Brenda Bryant (1985) argues that there is a fundamental human
need for closeness and emotional responsiveness to others; she states that
the first expression Of this lies in the infant’s basic survival need for
attachment to a caregiver. Bryant further states that this need for emotional
closeness continues throughout life and that fullfilling it is necessary for
mental health. Marsh, Serafica and Barenboim (1981) propose that affective
perspective taking and being empathic are, in part, the foundation for the
development Of competence in relationships. Shure (1982) also argues that
competence in social interactions is the result Of being able tO empathize and
take the perspective Of another. Judith Jordon (1981) proposes that
"Generally females are more empathic because Of socialization experiences,
early childhood identification, and sex role identification - all shaped by
prevailing cultural mores. Having the same gender nurturing figure
significantly influences the quality Of empathy that develops in females. In this
culture, the special quality Of attachment and identification between mother
and daughter foster the development Of empathy.”

These themes also have some support from research findings.
MaCCOby and Jacklin (1974) describe how women view themselves as being

superior in terms Of characteristics which are important in relationships; and

 

 

 

COOS

othe

behe

pros

has

mo

&I

an

dz

Si

21

consider themselves to be nurturing, sensitive and to show concern for

others. Martin Hoffman (1977b) specifically relates empathy to prosocial
behavior and states that empathy may be a component Of an affective,

prosocial other-oriented concern.

Another association between Children and same sex parent interactions
has been found by Cherry & Lewis, (1976) who found that at preschool age
mothers tend to interact more with daughters and fathers with sons. Margolin
& Patterson (1975) found the same tendency in elementary school children
and their parents. Bryant (1985) found that maternal concern at age 7
predicted empathy in their daughters at age 10. This effect was stronger for
daughters than sons and is another piece Of evidence that maternal behavior
specifically affects her daughter’s development.

The primary thrust of research and theory relating to the development
of empathy and its influence on the dimension Of the self referred to as
connected self has been focused on the processes which occur as a result of
the relationship between the mother and daughter. Although some Of the
same dynamics may be Operating in terms of fathers and sons, fathers and
daughters and mothers and sons; examining these relationships will be
exploratory since there is no theoretical base from which tO predict patterns.
However it seems reasonable that some of the same processes will be

occurring with the son’s identification with his father, socialization factors and

 

 

 

fathe

woul

(D
C
-1

the

look
mee
beh

pari

dev
em
chil
ent
the
rel;
attr
COI
be.
an

de

22

father, son sex role identification. If similar patterns are to be expected they

would be more prevalent between the parent and the same sex Child.

Summag

This research study examined the relationship between empathy and
the relationship self constructs in late adolescent children and their parents. It
looked at correlations between parents and their Children’s scores as
measured using paper and pencil instruments to examine the connection
between mothers and daughters, fathers and sons as well as that between
parents and their opposite sex children.

There is a strong theoretical basis proposing that parents influence the
development Of empathy in their Children (Hoffman, 1977). However, very little
empirical research has been done that specifically looks at parents and
Children and their levels Of empathy and what has been done is almost
entirely with preschool and elementary school Children. There is also a
theoretical foundation that suggests that the development Of empathy may be
related tO a dimension of the self referred to as the connected self. This study
attempts to integrate these theoretical orientations and examine the
connection between levels Of empathy and the connected self. There has
been a lack Of theoretical or empirical attention to males and their parents
and how levels Of parental empathy influence their male children and if

development Of empathy in males is related to the connected self orientation.

Com

were

3b

23

Comparisons for males in levels Of empathy or connection and their parents

were exploratory.

Statement Of Hypotheses

Empathy

1) Females will have higher empathy scores than males on all subscales with
the largest difference occurring on the Fantasy subscale in the Davis
measure.

2) Perspective Taking will be positively correlated with Empathic Concern for
all groups, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters.

3a) There will be more positive correlations between Empathy scores Of
mothers and daughters than between mothers and sons.

3b) There will be more positive correlations between the subscale score
Empathic Concern Of the Davis measure for the father and son than

between father and daughter.

Connected Self

4) Females will score higher on the RSI measure than males on all subscales
except Separate Self, where males will score higher.

5) There will be more positive correlations between the scores Of the mother
and the daughter on the RSI measure than there will be between the
scores Of the father and the daughter, on both Connected Self and

Separate Self scales.

Sal T
an

the

i 6a)

6b)

 

24

Sa) There will be more positive correlations between the scores Of the father
and the son on the RSI measure than there will be between the scores Of

the mothers and their sons.

Empathy/Connected§elf

6) There will be a positive correlation between the Connected Self subscale
Of the RSI measure and Empathic Concern, Fantasy and Perspective
Taking for females; the highest correlation will be between Connected Self
and Empathic Concern.

6a) Mothers who are high in levels Of Empathic Concern and Connected Self
scales will have daughters who score highly on the Connected Self
subscale.

6b) Mothers who are high in levels Of Empathic Concern and Connected Self
scales will have daughters who are high on the Empathic Concern
subscale.

7) Fathers who are high in levels Of Empathic Concern and Connected Self
scales will have sons who are high on the Connected Self subscale.

7a) Fathers who are high in levels Of Empathic Concern and Connected Self
scales will have sons who are high on the Empathic Concern subscale.

8) Triads showing a "traditional" pattern with mothers high in empathy and
fathers low in empathy will have daughters higher in empathy than triads

showing other patterns.

25

9) Triads with both parents high on Connected Self will have Children who
score highly on the Connected Self subscale Of the RSI.

10) Triads with both parents high on Connected Self and Empathic Concern
will have Children who score high on the Connected Self subscale and the

Empathic Concern subscale.

 

admir

Midw

'U
(D

sam
pare
of 7
age
We
93‘.

Da

ll

fat

all

II'II

METHODOLOGY

The data used to test the hypotheses Of this study were Obtained by
administering intrument packets to college undergraduates enrolled at a large

Midwestern State University and their parents.

Participants

The subjects in the project from which this study is drawn consist of a
sample Of 423 college students, 288 females and 135 males and 303 Of their
parents consisting Of 162 mothers and 141 fathers; the total sample consists
Of 726 subjects. Female students ranged in age from 17 tO 50 with a mean
age Of 19, male students 17 to 24, with a mean age Of 19: and parents’ ages
were from 36 to 68 years. The students were recruited from undergraduate
psychology courses and in most cases were given extra credit for their
participation.

The data tO be used for this study includes all mother daughter pairs (N
= 106), all father son pairs (N = 41), all mother son pairs (N = 50) and all
father daughter pairs (N = 92). Data involving triads will also be used when
appropriate, parent daughter triads (N = 67), and parent son triads (N = 29).

Individual data from all subjects was also analyzed separately.

26

respor
waves
female
and 5
(Sept
femal
pant

Conn

m
Were
Fhep
rang
DIES
QWe
to 7
Dan
that
The

Sac

27

There are 100 triads with a student and both Of their parents
responding, 29 male and 67 female students. Data were collected in two
waves, the first spring term (April-June) 1989 where 157 students, 104
females and 53 males participated and 103 parents responded, 52 mothers
and 51 fathers. The second wave of data was collected during the fall term
(September-December) 1989; during these sessions 268 students, 185
females and 83 males and 200 of their parents: 110 mothers and 90 fathers
participated. Approval for the research was given by the Human Subjects

Committee.

Procedure

Undergraduate students were recruited through sign-up sheets which
were posted in their pyChOlogy classes and labeled the Student-Parent Study.
Prepared packets Of instruments were administered to the students in groups
ranging from 10-100 students by female researchers. An instructional
presentation (see Appendix H) and instructions (shown in Appendix D) were
given at the beginning Of each session. Packets Of instruments took from 30
to 70 minutes approximately to complete. The subjects were told that
participation was voluntary, that they could omit materials if they Chose, and
that they could stop at any time and discontinue participartion in the research.
The students were then asked to address a packet Of similar instruments to
each Of their parents; these packets were subsequently mailed to the parents

by the researchers. Students were also told that sending instrument packets

tothe
neithe
persc
aunts
subsi
these
in th
rese.
Darti
whe‘
that
Of p
on I
use
SlUc
Wer

CQn
SUb

InVE

28

to their parents was voluntary and that packets could be sent to one, both or
neither parent. Some students expressed the desire tO mail packets to
persons other than parents who had raised them, such as grandparents or
aunts and uncles. These requests were complied with and the packets were
subsequently recorded as being from caregivers other than parents. (None of
these packets were used for parent student analyses). Letters were enclosed
in the parent packets which asked for their voluntary involvement in the
research (see Appendix C). In cases where extra credit was given for student
participation, credit was given for participating in the project independent Of
whether or not the parents filled out and returned their materials. TO ensure
that all scores and information from subjects were kept confidential, each triad
Of parents and Children was assigned a subject number which was precoded
on packet materials, to permit collection Of data from family members without
use of names. Each student was given debriefing information regarding the
study Upon completion Of their instrument packet; both parents and students
were given opportunities to request more information about the study when

results become available.

Instruments

The instruments used for this research were part of a research packet
containing five instruments, demographic information and instructions. The
subset of instruments used in this study included the Relational Self

Inventory, (Pearson, Reinhart, Strommen et al., 1985), the Davis

lnfinpe
"Tenn:
"fionn:
used i
hfierai
Chang
Quest
quesfi

the or

E4119

hfier;
CD081
com;

“Nor

lndiv
antic
Davi
em;3

whet

29

Interpersonal Reactivity Index, (Davis, 1980), the student demographic
information (found in Appendix A) and parent demographic information
information (see Appendix B). Other instruments administered which were not
used in this study were: the Bern Sex Role Inventory, the Frassetto
Interaction Index (Fll) and an Open-ended questionaire about relationship
Changes, the Earliest Memory Questionaire, and the Learning Experience
Questionaire. Fll, Earliest Memory and Relationship Changes are all new
questionaires developed for use in this study. The questionaires are listed in

the order they were administered in the research packet.

Empathy

Students and parents’ empathy was measured using the Davis (1980)
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) (see Appendix E). This measure was
Chosen because it has a multi-construct design which measures the four
components Of empathy proposed by Davis, as discussed earlier: persective
taking, empathic concern, fantasy empathy and personal distress.

The perspective taking subscale contains items which measure an
individual’s ability to see things from another person’s point Of view and to
anticipate others’ reactions and behavior. This is the cognitive component Of
Davis’s empathy measure and is based on Piaget’s theoretical work which
emphasizes an individual’s ability to see things from another’s perspective

when acting in a nonegocentric way.

 

expe

COOS

fiadn

enux

 

and

invot
the f
founi
Dhys

grea‘

I980
DErSI
Davi
enka
Sexe
enux

them

30

The empathic concern subscale measures the person’s tendency to
experience feelings Of sympathy and concern for other; this aptitude is
considered to be a dimension Of emotionality. Empathic concern is the
traditional definition Of the emotional or affective component Of numerous
empathy scales and includes the person’s feelings Of compassion, warmth
and concern for others.

The fantasy subscale measures the ability Of the individual to get
involved in fictional works such as plays, books and movies. Davis included
the fantasy dimension because Of the work Of Stotland et al (1978), who
found that persons who score high on Fantasy-Empathy tend to show greater
physiological arousal in response tO another’s distress and also tO show a
greater tendency to help another person.

The personal distress subscale measures the person’s emotional
reaction and feelings Of personal anxiety which come from viewing another
person’s distress or negative experience. Personal distress was included by
Davis as a dimension which appeared during factor analysis. It Clearly
emerged as a separate factor and was found to be equally present in both
sexes. Davis argues that it is necessary for an individual who is being
empathic to recognize feelings of fear, apprehension and discomfort in
themselves.

Each item in the Davis scale is rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1

(Does not describe me well) to 5 (Describes me very well).

inhfir

1980'

fouri

 

rhea:
DBISI
Char
Appi
on a
State

(Dth

has
and
Con
3km

0th

def

31

Test-retest reliability is adequate with r’s above .60 each time and
internal consistency is good with alphas above .70 for all subscales (Davis,
1980). A factor analysis Of the measure showed the factors loading on the

four dimensions as predicted.

Relationship Self

Connected Self orientation for both students and parents was
measured using the Relationship Self Inventory (RSI) which measures the
personal dimensions proposed by Gilligan and others and which is
Characterized by a person’s orientation toward relationships to others (see
Appendix F). The instrument is composed of 60 statements which are rated
on a 5 point scale: 1= Not like me at all; 5 = Very much like me. These
statements comprise 4 scales: Connected Self, Separate Self, Primacy of
Other Care, Self & Other Care.

The Connected Self scale measures the degree to which a person
has an orientation towards self-definition which involves connection to others
and in which concerns of care are central. Of primary importance to a
connected person are issues of nurturance, equity and compassion. A sample
statement would be: "Activities Of care that I perform expand both myself and
others".

The Separate Self scale measures the degree to which an individual
defines the self through an emphasis on individual achievement and where

reciprocity is considered tO be Of primary importance in relationships. The

locus

 

equa;
order

takih -

the C:

other

theni
othe:

N181

care
IHVC
198

”Ge

7t3.
CO”

32

focus for the individual with this orientation is towards individual rights, justice,
equality and fairness. A sample Of a separate statement is "I believe that in
order to survive I must concentrate more on taking care Of myself than on
taking care Of others”.

The remaining two scales were designed tO measure manifestations of
the Connected Self which differ in their relative maturity and in their links with
other variables.

The Primacy of Other Care scale measures the importance Of the
theme Of caring for others in a relationship. In this orientation the care Of
others has priority over the care Of self. An example from this subscale: "I feel
that my development has been shaped more by the persons I care about than
by what I do and accomplish".

The Self and Other Care scale measures the individual emphasis on
care for all. The primary focus for this Characterization Is that relationships
involve the care Of self as well as care for others (Gilligan, 1982, Lyons,
1983). A sample from this scale: ”True responsibility involves making sure my
needs are cared for as well as the needs Of others".

Standardization was done on 1145 subjects ranging in age from 16 to
78. Subjects included high school and college students, adults attending
continuing education programs at a university, and a group Of recently

separated or divorced individuals.

accep
Care

amor
betwe

The C

 

PCDCZ

33

Internal consistencies (Cronbach’s Alpha) for the scales were
acceptable: Separate Objective = .78, Connected Self = .72, Primacy Of Other
Care = .65, and Self and Other Care = .72. The expected relationships
among scales was found, as follows; a low but negative correlation was found
between Connected and Separate Scales for both men and women (-.23).
The Connected Self subscale has a moderatedly positive correlation with the

POC (.56) and SOC (.52) subscales.

 

Invent
done

from t
Appei
Ontf
founc
comp
Care
Ontr

HOVJI

tWo.

80m

RESULTS

P_re£minarv ADM

This study involved the use Of two measures, the Relationship Self
Inventory and the Davis IRI. Each has four subscales. One-way Anovas were
done on the data from waves 1 & 2 before combining to ensure that data
from the two waves were comparable. These analyses are reported in
Appendix K. Of the 16 comparisons with the IRI, only three were significant.
On the Davis Personal Distress subscale a significantly higher score was
found for all groups except fathers for wave 2 participant. Of the 16
comparisons on the RSI, only two were significant: Fathers’ Primacy Of Other
Care subscale Of the RSI was higher for wave 1 subjects; and Sons’ scores
on the Connected Self subscale of the RSI were higher for wave 1 subjects.
However the absolute difference in terms Of means is very small and the
large sample size may contribute to making that small difference significant
(see Tables 1 & 2).

It is not clear why the significant differences between waves one and
two. Students comprised the bulk Of the data and it is possible that there are

some differences in first term freshmen (Wave 2) and the group composed of

34

Tame
Meant.

 

Perso'
(DaugI
Persoi
(Sons
Persor
IMOWN
Persoi

(Fathe

\

 

 

Table
Mear

POC
(Fatt
COm
ISOr
last

don.
haVl
mor
thei

ma)

time

35

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1
Means And Standard Deviations IRI-Wave Differences

Wave 1 Wave 2

Mean SD Mean SD
Personal Distress
(Daughters 19.54 5.03 20.82 3.69
Personal Distress
(Sons) 16.75 4.56 18.61 3.94
Personal Distress
(Mothers) 18.18 5.14 21.19 6.72
Personal Distress
(Fathers) 16.63 4.59 17.33 4.22
Table 2
Means And Standard Deviations RSI-Wave Differences

Wave 1 Wave 2

Mean SD Mean SD
POC
(Fathers) 3.28 .47 3.06 .50
Connected Self
(Sons) 4.08 .38 3.91 .45

 

last term freshmen (Wave 1) that is not apparent in the analyses which were
done for this study. For first term freshmen this is probably the first time they
have spent any extended time away from home. Because Of this they may be
more focused on themselves and this could cause inflated scores in terms Of
their levels of Personal Distress. Mother’s higher levels of Personal Distress
may also be due to concern for a Child who is away from home for the first

time. Despite the Observed differences, data for the two waves were

 

comb:
of the
are nr1
the tw

mentic

 

 

 

 

 

correle

Analy:

into gt
and o
pIacei
meas

father

Table
Pare,
(MOI

\

CON
SELI
SCO

36

combined on these grounds: 1) The Davis Personal Distress scale is not one
Of the focal scales for the hypotheses in this study. 2) Other wave differences
are not part Of any coherent pattern and involve only 2 Of 28 comparisons on
the two Instruments so the differences are probably due to Chance. 3) As
mentioned, actual mean differences were small. 4) The patterns Of
correlations for each group is the same for both waves.
Analyses Related to Predictions

To do further analyses relating to hypotheses, parents were divided
into groups based on median splits Of their Connected Self scores Of the RSI
and Of their Empathic Connection scores on the Davis, IRI. Subjects were
placed into groups based on their status (above or below the median) on both
measures (see Tables 3 & 4). This was done separately for mothers and
fathers.
Table 3

Parent’s Empathic Concern and Connected Self Score
(MOMHH, DADHH)

 

EMPATHIC CONCERN SCORE

Above Below
Median Median
CONNECTED
SELF Above High-High Low-High
SCORE Median
Below High-Low Low-Low

Median

 

The 9'
labeka
rthers
and er

SCOIBS

 

on bot

m

Father
IN = 1

lflothe
(N = 1
For th
dhnsn:
1familie
FESea
1rEither

empa

37

The group with parents who scored above the median for both subscales was
labeled High-High and for the analyses this group was compared with all
others. The group Of mothers who were above the median in both connection
and empathy was labeled MOMHH (mothers-high on both). The fathers with
scores on each subscale above the median were labeled dadhh (fathers high

on both).

Medians used for the divisions are as follows:

RSI Connected Self Davis Empathic Concern
Fathers 3.87 26.65
(N = 141)
Mothers 4.12 28.94
(N = 162)

For the analyses relating tO 3-member families (Hypotheses 8-10), a similar
division was made based on scores Of mothers and fathers from the same
families combined together. In order to replicate a pattern found in previous
research (Hypothesis 8), the group with Mothers scoring high in empathy and
fathers scoring low in empathy were combined and labeled pemp (parental

empathy) to represent a stereotypical pattern Of parent empathy (Table 4).

I
Table ..

FATHEl
EMPA
CONC
SCOR‘

 

 

where
scores
on the
(troop

Table
Brent

38

Table 4
Parent’s Empathy Scores Combined (PEMP)

MOTHER’S EMPATHIC CONCERN SCORE

Above Below
Median Median
FATHER’S
EMPATHIC Above High-High Low-High
CONCERN Median
SCORE
Below High-Low Low-Low

Median

 

Groups were similarly developed called prel (Parental-Connected Self)
where both parents scores were combined based on their Connected Self
scores Of the RSI. The group where both parents scored above the median
on the Connected Self subscale Of the RSI was labeled High-High and this
group was compared with all others (see Table 5).

Table 5
Parent’s Connected Self Combined (PREL)

 

MOTHER’S CONNECTED SELF SCORE

Above Below
Median Median
FATHER’S
CONNECTED Above High-High High-Low
SELF Median
SCORE
Below High-Low Low-Low

Median

 

TO test Hypotheses 9 and 10, all parents were put into groups based

on their scores on median splits for both Empathic Concern and Connected

 

Self.

Fathe
parent
separ
done i
analys
parent
same
daugh'

Basie

deviat
meast

IDSIIUr

Ma

akflja
SubSC
rhedka
of re“;

”is he

39

Self. The four categories, Empathic Concern, Connected Self, Mother and
Father were put into all possible combinations which resulted in 16 groups Of
parents. Four groups each were also formed for sons and daughters
separately for levels of Connected-Self and Empathic Concern. This was
done in the same way it was done for parents (see Table 3). Chi-square
analyses were done using the above groups to look for relationships between
parent levels Of connection and empathy and scores in their children on the
same measures. These analyses were done separately for sons and
daughters.
Basic Statistics:

Summary statistics in Tables 6 & 7 show means and standard
deviations for the subscales Of each measure. The calculated means for each
measure were very similar to those found in other research using these

instruments.
Reliability amt Validity of Empathy Measure (IRI)

Internal consistency for the Davis IRI was at acceptable levels with
alpha levels ranging from a low Of .62 for the father’s personal distress
subscale to a high Of .82 for the daughter’s fantasy subscale, the overall
median was 76 (see Table 9). It has been reported that an adequate level
Of reliability for an alpha for research purposes is above .60 (Nunnaly, 1967).

It is necessary to view subscales with low alphas with caution since so much

Tabk
Remt

Grout

Meni
N=14
Mean
SD

Menc
N=13
Mean
SD

Men
N=27
Mean
SD

INOWN
N=15
Mean
SD

\Non“
N=28
MGian
SD

Wom,
N=45
SD

40

Table 6
Relationship Self Inventory (RSI) Scale Means and Standard Deviations

 

Group Separate Connected Primacy Of Self and Other
Other Care Care

Men (Fathers)

N=141

Mean 2.71 3.88 3.20 3.87

SD .56 .55 .50 .50

Men(Sons)

N=135

Mean 2.75 4.02 3.18 3.89

SD .51 .42 .42 .4

Men

N=276

Mean 2.73 3.95 3.19 3.88

SD .53 .50 .46 .46

Women (Mothers)

N=162

Mean 2.47 4.12 3.26 3.89

SD .46 .45 .53 .43

Women (Daughters)

N=288

Mean 2.61 4.24 3.30 4.08

SD .50 .45 .42 .40

Women

N=450

Mean 2.56 4.20 3.29 4.01

SD .49 .45 .46 .42

 

41

 

 

Table 7

Davis (Interpersonal Reactivity Index) Scale Means and Standard Deviations

Group Fantasy Empathic Perspective Personal
Connection Taking Distress

Men(Fathers)

N=141

Mean 18.79 26.65 24.57 16.89

SD 5.53 4.71 4.46 4.46

Men(Sons)

N=135

Mean 22.14 25.79 23.13 17.47

SD 5.44 4.34 4.46 4.42

Men

N=276

Mean 20.43 26.23 23.86 17.17

SD 5.72 4.54 4.51 4.44

Women(Mothers)

N=162

Mean 22.10 28.94 25.90 19.15

SD 6.46 4.51 4.80 5.85

Women(Daughters)

N=288

Mean 26.22 29.05 25.06 20.00

SD 5.72 3.95 5.15 4.63

Women

N=450

Mean 24.74 29.01 25.36 19.70

SD 6.31 4.15 5.04 5.12

 

of the

correé

As

prese

 

perso

betw

 

was c
has c
care 3

SUDSC

Table
(:0fo
Moth.

Fathe

‘ ‘
‘

Mom.

\

42

Of the variance is due to measurement error and this will tend tO lower the
correlations with other measures.

As Davis (1983) found in his study, convergent validity was shown in the
present sample with negative correlations between perspective taking and
personal distress found on subscales for daughters and a positive correlation
between perspective taking and empathic concern found for all groups (see

Tables 10-13).

Reliability Of Connected Self Measure (RSI)

TO ensure that scales were reasonably reliable, internal consistency
was checked for all subscales on the RSI. The Relationship Self Inventory
has coefficient alphas ranging from .58 for the daughter’s primacy Of other
care subscale to an alpha Of .81 for both the father’s and son’s Separate Self
subscale with a median Of .71. These scores are shown in Table 8.

Table 8

Coefficient Alphas for Relationship Self Inventory by Group, Fathers, Sons,
Mothers and Daughters

 

Separate Connected Primacy Of Self and Other
Other Care Care

Fathers .81 .78 .69 .78
N = 141
Sons .81 .69 .63 .73
N = 135
Mothers .71 .67 .71 .68
N = 162
Daughters .79 .75 .58 .72

N=288

 

43

Table 9

Coefficient Alphas for for Davis Interpersonal Reactivity Index by Group,
Fathers, Sons, Mothers and Daughters

 

 

Fantasy Concern Perspective Distress
Fathers .77 .77 .74 .62
N = 141
Sons .81 .78 .77 .74
N = 135
Mothers .79 .76 .75 .74
N = 162
Daughters .82 .71 .80 .69
N = 288

 

Empathy Scales

Hypothesis 1 stated that sex differences would be found with females
expected to have higher empathy scores than males on all subscales with the
largest difference occurring on the fantasy subscale. For male and female
groups overall this hypothesis was supported (see Table 6). Paired t-tests
Show all these differences to be significant (Fantasy t = 4.91, _p 5 .001;
Perspective Taking, t= 2.82, p 5 .01; Empathic Concern, t= 4.26, p 5 .001;
and Personal Distress, t= 3.45, p 5 .001). However, when the males and
females are broken down into parent-child groups one minor reversal Of this
general pattern appeared. As Table 6 shows, for the fantasy subscale, sons
scored higher at 22.14 than mothers did at 22.10. This difference however

was not significant (n = 51, t= -1.09, p >05.

 

would
Davis
paren
mean

predic

 

 

with I
was I
.37, .

Tabl

Tab

44
It was further predicted in Hypothesis 1 that the largest difference

would occur between male and female means on the fantasy subscale Of the
Davis IRI. Table 2 shows that the largest difference in group means for any
parent-Child combination was indeed on fantasy subscale with males having a
mean score Of 20.43 and females a mean score of 24.74, supporting this
prediction.

Hypothesis 2, that Perspective Taking would be positively correlated
with Empathic Concern was supported for all groups. The highest correlation
was Observed for fathers, (5 = .50, p < .001), and the lowest for daughters (5 =

.37, p < .001). Intercorrelations between empathy subscales are shown in

Tables 10-13.

Table 10

Correlation Coefficients for Daughters Empathy Scores on All Subscales
(n = 288)

 

 

Fantasy Pertak Empcon Perdis
Fantasy ----- .18 ** .37 *** .09
Pertak ----- .37 *** -.15 *
Empcon ----- .14 *

Perdis ..---

 

* Q S .05. ** Q 5 .01, *** p 5 .001, two-tailed

Tabka
Correl
ln =

—

F anta
Pena
Empc
Perdi

 

Tabl
Corn

( :

Fant
Pen
Em;

8H

45

Table 11

Correlation Coefficients for Sons Empathy Scores on All Subscales
(n = 135)

 

 

Fantasy Pertak Empcon Perdis
Fantasy ----- .31 *** .36 *** .26 *
Pertak ----- .48 *** .02
Empcon ---- .21 *

Perdis ....-

 

* Q 5 .05. *" Q 5 .01, *** p 5 .001, two-tailed

Table 12

Correlation Coefficients for Mothers Empathy Scores on All Subscales
(N = 162)

 

 

Fantasy Pertak Empcon Perdis
Fantasy ----- .30 *** .27 *** .22 **
Pertak ----- .43 *** .08
Empcon ----- .33 ***

Perdis ----

 

* Q _<_ .05. ** p_ 5 .01, *** p 5 .001, two-tailed

Table 13

Correlation Coefficients for Fathers Empathy Scores on All Subscales
(N = 141)

 

 

Fantasy Pertak Empcon Perdis
Fantasy ----- .22 ** .30 *** .26 **
Pertak ----- .50 *** .08
Empcon ----- .05

Perdis -----

 

* Q 5 .05. ** Q 5 .01, *** p 5 .001, two-tailed

bawe
sons.

daugi

 

moreI

daugl

daug
Emp
mott
SOFI
Son

SEE

(:Ol
Vve
<33
CO

DC

46
Empathy Scale Patterns‘Between gapentS and Children

TO test the third hypothesis that there will be more positive correlations
between the empathy scores Of mothers and daughters than mothers and
sons, correlations were done on all subscales Of the IRI for mothers and
daughters and mothers and sons. This hypothesis was not supported. Rather,
more correlations were Observed for mothers and sons than for mothers and
daughters.

Only one correlation was significant for the scores Of mothers and
daughters, mother’s levels Of Empathic Concern and Daughter’s levels of
Empathic Concern (r = .20, p < .05). Three Of the correlations between
mothers and sons empathy scores were significant (N = 51) Mothers’ and
Sons’ Fantasy (r = .26, p < .05), Empathic concern (r = .26, p < .05) and
Sons’ Personal Distress and Mothers’ Empathic Concern (r = .32, p < .05).
See Appendix J for these tables Of correlations.

Hypothesis 3b predicted more positive correlations between the Empathic
Concern scores Of fathers and sons than fathers and daughters. Correlations
were done on all subscales Of the IRI for fathers and sons and fathers and
daughters. This hypothesis was supported (see Appendix J) with the
correlation between fathers and sons levels Of empathic concern being
positive and significant (r = .51, p< .001). The correlation between fathers and

daughters was not Significant. See Appendix J.

subs:
score
99nd
(I68.
than

moth

 

SCOIE

 

 

and:
Itovv

Self

47
Connected Self Scales (RSI)

Hypothesis 4 predicted that females would score higher on all
subscales of the RSI measure except Separate Self, where males would
score higher. This pattern was found as Table 6 shows. However, the only
significant difference between connected scales was for Connected Self (t =
4.68, p 5 .001). For the Separate Self subscale males did in fact score higher
than females (t = -3.34, p 5 .001). Overall sons scored the highest and
mothers the lowest.

The prediction for the connection-related subscales that females would
score higher than males was also supported, with one exception: mothers
and sons both have the same means for Self and Other Care M = 3.89.
However the t-tests show these differences in means to be nonsignificant.
Self and Other Care (t = .87, p > .05), SOC (t = .87, p > .05), and P00 (t =

.51, p 3 .05).

Connected Self (RSI) Spple Pattgns Betwgen Parents and
Children

 

Hypothesis 5 predicted that there would be more positive correlations
between the scores Of mother and daughter on the Connected Self and
Separate Self subscales Of the RSI than there would be with fathers and
daughters. Contrary to the hypothesis, only one Of the correlations between
any RSI scale scores Of mothers and daughters were significant, daughters

SOC and mothers POC (r = -.30, p < .01). Three significant correlations were

48
found between the subscales Of father and daughter (N = 92) which had not

been predicted (see Appendix J).

Hypothesis 5a, that there would be more positive correlations between
the scores Of father and son on the Connected Self and Separate Self
subscales Of the RSI than would occur between mothers and their sons was
similarly not supported. The only significant correlation for fathers and sons
occurred on the sons’ Separate Self and the fathers’ SOC (r = .40, p < .01).

See Appendix J.

Overall Patterns Between Empathy and Connected Self

Intercorrelations between the Davis IRI and the RSI for all groups are
found in Tables 14, 15, 16, and 17. For females, all Davis subscales except
Personal Distress were expected to be positively correlated to the Connected
Self subscale Of the RSI, with the highest correlation between Connected Self
and Empathic Concern. Positive correlations between all three
connection-related RSI scores and Empathic Concern, Fantasy and
Perspective Taking subscales were found as predicted for daughters, with the
highest correlation occurring between Connected Self and Empathic Concern
(r = .43, p < .001), as predicted (see Table 14). For mothers, however, the
only positive correlations between subscales were between two
connection-related scales and the Empathic Concern subscales (Table 16).
Table 16 shows that the correlations between Connected Self and Fantasy

and Connected 'Self and Perspective Taking were not significant for mothers.

49

Table 14

Correlation Coefficients for Daughters Empathy and Relational Self Inventory,
all Subscales (N = 288)

 

 

 

Sepobj Con rel POC SOC
Fantasy -.21*** .30*** .17* .....
Pertak -.24*** .33*** ..... .1 5*
Empcon -.44*** .43*** 24*”
Perdis --- --- .23“ -.17**

 

*p__ 5 .05, ** p5 .01, *** p 5 .001, two-tailed

Table 15
Correlation Coefficients for Sons Empathy and Relational Self Inventory, all
Subscales (N = 135)

 

 

Sepobj Conrel POC SOC
Fantasy ---- .24" .31 *** -----
Pertak -.34*** .32“ 29*" .....
Empcon -.41*** .39*** ,41*** -...-
Perdis ---- ..... .26“ -_25***

 

*p_ 5 .05, ** p 5.01, *** p 5 .001, two-tailed

Table 16
Correlation Coefficients for Mothers Empathy and Relational Self Inventory, all
Subscales (N = 162)

 

 

Sepobj Conrel POC Soc
Fantasy --------------- . 1 6*
Pertak -.20* -—--- ----------
Empcon -.29*** .29*** .22" .....
Perdis ----- ...-- .24" .....

 

*2. 5 .05. ** p _<_ .01. *** p 5 .001, two-tailed

50

Table 17

Correlation Coefficients for Fathers Empathy and Relational Self Inventory, all
Subscales (N = 141)

 

 

Sepobj Conrel POC Soc
Fantasy ----- .22" .23" .....
Pertak _.33*** ‘23:": __________
Empcon -.38*** '49:”: . 31*** _____
Perdis ----- um .22" .....

 

*0. 5 .05. ** Q 5 .01, *** p 5 .001, two-tailed

Within-Family Comparisons for Empathy and Connected Self

 

TO do further analyses on the triads for which mother, father, and Child
data were available, median splits were done Of mothers and fathers scores
on the Empathic Concern Subscale Of the IRI and the Connected Self
subscale Of the RSI to create groups which are either high on both or low on
both or mixed high and low for the subscales (see Table 3). One-way Anovas
were then done to determine if the parents levels on these subscales was
related to their child’s level Of Connected Self or Empathic connection. These

analyses were done separately for sons and daughters.

Maternal and Child Levels Of Empathy and Connected Self

It was predicted in Hypothesis 6a that mothers who are high on levels
of empathic concern and connected self subscales would have daughters who
are high on connected self. For this analysis, mothers were divided into two

groups using levels shown in Table 3 with the Hl-Hl mothers in one group

51

and all the other mothers in the other group; the daughters scores were then
compared to determine if the group the mother was in was related tO
daughter levels Of Connected Self. The results Of this analysis were not
significant (_F_(1,105) = .05, p > .05).

Similarly, Hypothesis 6b, that mothers who are high on levels Of
Empathic Concern and Connected Self subscales would have daughters who
are high on the empathic concern subscale Of the IRI, was not supported (E
(1,105) = 1.35, p > .05).

Paternal and Child Levels Of Empathy and Connected Self

It was predicted in Hypothesis 7a that fathers who are high on levels Of
Empathic Concern and Connected Self subscales would have sons who are
high on the Connected Self subscale (N = 41). For this analysis fathers were
divided into two groups, (using levels shown in Table 3) with the Hl-HI fathers
in one group and all other fathers in another group. The analysis looked at
the fathers’ groups to determine whether the levels were related to sons’
levels of Connected Self. This prediction was not upheld (F (1,41) = .09, p =
> .05).

The prediction in Hypothesis 7a that fathers who scored highly on the
Empathic Concern and Connected Self subscales would have sons who

would score high on the Empathic Concern subscale was supported, see

Table 18 (F(1,41) = 6.37, p 5.01).

 

52
Table 18

Effect Of Fathers Levels Of Empathy and Connected Self on Sons Levels Of
Empathy ( N = 41 pairs)

 

 

Variable Sum Of DF Mean F Sig Of
Squares Square F

Between 154.4464 1 154.4464 6.3725 .0157

Groups

Within 969.4583 40 24.2365

Groups

Total 1 123.9048 41

 

Empathy Patterns in Triads

TO examine whether Triads showing a "traditional" pattern Of empathy
with mother high and fathers low in empathy would have daughters who are
high in empathy (Hypothesis 8) as found in previous research with
young children, median splits were done; and families in which mothers
scored higher than the mean and fathers who scored lower than the mean on
Empathic Concern were combined into a group. Daughters from these
families were then compared to all other daughters using One-way Anova.
The results were not significant, the hypothesis was not supported.
Connected Self Patternfln Triad_s_

Hypothesis 9 predicted that parental and child levels Of connection

would be related. Parents who both scored highly on the Connected Self

subscale Of the RSI were expected have Children who score higher on the

53

Connected Self subscale than other children. A One-way Anova was done
separately for daughters and sons. The hypothesis was not supported for

either group.

Connected Self and Empathy Patterns in Trigglg

Parents who scored high on both the Connected Self subscale Of the
RSI and the Empathic Concern subscale Of the Davis were predicted to have
children who would score highly on the Connected Self subscale and the
Empathic Concern subscales. TO test this hypothesis, all possible groups Of
parents were formed based on their levels Of connection and Empathic
Concern creating 16 groups. Separate Chi-Square analyses by sex were
done to test for a connection between the parent’s levels and the children’s
levels when the scores from both tests were combined. The parent-daughter
analysis involved 67 triads and the parent-son analysis involved 29 triads.

The Chi-Square analyses for neither sons or daughters was significant.

Additional Analyses

Although not predicted in the hypotheses the Separate Self scale Of the
RSI was found to be negatively correlated with the empathy subscales
Empathic Concern and Perspective Taking. The Primacy Of Other Care
subscale of the RSI was actually more consistently correlated with the IRI
subscales for men than for women (see Tables 14-17). POC showed the
strongest relationship to the empathy subscales for sons who had highly

significant positive correlations between POC and all 4 of the Davis

54

subscales. The Primacy Of Other Care subscale Of the RSI was found to be
positively correlated to the Empathic Concern subscale Of the Davis for all
groups, with the highest correlation occurring for fathers ([ = .41, p < .001)
(see Table 17). Primacy Of Other Care was also positively correlated with the
Davis Personal Distress subscale for all groups. SOC showed the least
consistent pattern Of correlations with the empathy subscales but showed a
generation contrast with a negative correlation with Personal Distress for

Children but no correlation for parents.

 

DISCUSSION

Sex Difference (IRI)

Some Of the hypotheses were supported and others were not.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that females would score higher on all the empathy
subscales than males, and females did in fact score higher on all subscales
with only one nonsignificant reversal. On the fantasy subscale sons scored
fractionally higher than mothers. A t-test showed this difference to be
nonsignificant so it was probably due to Chance. A significant difference was
found between subscale means for males and females on the fantasy
subscale which replicates Davis’s (1983) findings. As found in other research
(Lennon & Eisenberg, 1983) higher female scores were found on both the
cognitive and emotional components Of empathy when measured using
self-report inventories. Since the measure used was a paper and pencil
self-report inventory this difference between men and women was expected.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that the cognitive component, Perspective
Taking and the emotional component, Empathic Concern of the Davis
instrument would be positively correlated and this was supported for all
groups. This replicates past research (Davis, 1983) which found the

correlation for both males and females also. This research gives more

55

56

specific information about males and females Of different ages and expands
Davis’ finding since his research subjects were all college students. Empathic
Concern and Perspective Taking are the considered to be the primary
components Of empathy so a positive correlation between these subscales is
to be expected if the measure is actually measuring the construct Of empathy

(Eisenberg, 1983; Hoffman, 1982; Davis, 1980).
Empathy Patterns Betwe_en Parents and Children

It was expected that there would be more positive correlations on the
empathy measures between the same sex parent and child than between the
Opposite sex parent and Child. In fact for mothers only one Of the correlations
were found tO be significant with daughters, and three significant correlations
were found between mothers and sons; mothers’ levels Of Empathic Concern
was positively correlated with sons’ levels Of Empathic Concern and Personal
Distress and both mothers’ and sons’ levels Of fantasy were positively
correlated. It was expected that because Of nature Of the mother-daughter
relationship and the opportunity for modeling the behavior of the same sex
parent that mothers and daughters levels of empathy would be similar. This
was not the case at least for middle-aged mothers and college-aged
daughters. The reason that this pattern did not show up in the data may be
because Of the different developmental levels Of mothers and daughters. It is
very possible that if we could measure daughters’ levels Of empathy later in

life, at the same age and same life period their mothers are in now, we would

57

find a pattern of similarity. It may be necessary for mothers and daughters to
have experienced some of the same life events and tO be in the same stage
developmentally for the influences to be clearer.

For fathers and sons, in contrast, this same sex parent-child prediction
was supported with the expected positive correlation found between fathers’
and sons’ levels Of empathic concern. None Of the correlations for fathers and
daughters on the IRI subscales were significant.

The expected relationships between mothers and daughters were not
supported by the results of the analyses and it is unclear exactly what
process is occurring which may Obscure this connection or it is Of course
possible that the theorized relationship does not exist. An alternative
explanation may be that some variable which was not measured is the critical
component in the connection. Or perhaps it is the process Of emotional
autonomy discussed by Frank (1988) which is the most salient factor
occurring in the relationship at this stage Of development since the children in
the study have a mean age Of 19 years. Frank describes this stage as one
where the adolescent pulls away from the parent, questioning their knowledge
and values and feeling anger, disillusionment and betrayal while finding that
their parents don’t indeed know all. This process Of pulling away may be
stronger in the relationship between mothers and daughters during this time
thus obscuring some of the similarities which would be apparent at a different

developmental stage in the daughter’s life. Why the relationship would

 

58

appear for cross-sex comparisons but no same-sex comparisons is difficult to
explain. Since three of the 16 correlations for mothers and sons were
significant, it is probably not a matter of chance. The reason for the link
between mothers’ and sons’ levels Of empathy is unclear. Theory describes
the link between mother and daughter as being very strong, if the relationship
between mother and son is close but does not require the pulling away from
each other then this may explain why the relationship between levels Of
empathy shows up for sons and not for daughters. This research looked at
parent and child empathy using the same instrument. Very little research has
been done on parent and child empathy and what has been done has been
on young Children and their parents generally using different instruments for

each group.

Sexfifferences RS_|

The prediction that females would score higher on subscales Of the RSI
relating to Connected Self was partially supported. Females did in fact score
higher on the Connected Self and the Primacy Of Other subscales however
for the Self and Other Care, both mothers and sons have the same means.

Males did in fact score higher on the Separate Self subscale as predicted.
Connected Self Patterns between Parents and Chilg'en
As with the empathy subscale it was expected that there would be

patterns Of similarity between same sex parents and children which was

stronger than with opposite sex parents. This hypothesis was not supported.

59

Only one of the correlations between subscales Of the RSI for mothers and
daughters was found to be significant; the daughters’ levels Of Self and Other
Care was found to be negatively correlated with the mothers Primacy Of
Other Care subscale. Apparently having a mother who emphasizes caring for
others makes it more likely that college-aged daughters consider it important
to care for self as others as well, which is theoretically a more mature
position. It is also possible that daughters learn from their mothers focus on
others the personal cost of not including the self in that care and move tO
include themselves in that care orientation. There may also be a generational
or cohort difference between mothers and daughters that would account for
these differences. It would be interesting to see what happens as daughters
assume adult roles and become mothers themselves.

A significant correlation was also found between mothers’ levels Of
Connected Self and sons’ levels Of Primacy Of Other Care. This is interesting
Since it appears possible that mothers who are more highly connected may
tend to influence their sons to value and consider the care Of others tO be
important. It is also interesting because assuming it is not a matter of
Chance, it suggests that cross-sex parent-Child influences on empathy and
connection are at least as important as same sex influences. The prediction in
hypothesis 5 was similarly not supported, there was a stronger correlation
between subscales Of the RSI between fathers and daughters than between

fathers and sons. Significant correlations were in fact found between fathers

60

and daughters on the Separate Self subscales, and the fathers Separate Self
subscale and the daughters Self and Other Care subscale. Other positive
correlations were found between the fathers’ level Of Connected Self and
daughters’ levels Of Primacy Of Other Care and between father’s and
daughters Primacy Of Other Care. SO for both fathers and mothers and their
opposite sex Children the patterns of correlations were stronger than for their
same sex children.

The lack of similar patterns between mother and daughter and fathers
and sons may have a similar mechanism Operating as is occurring with the
empathy scores. If the child and their parent would have levels of connection
tested at the same time developmentally in their lives then the patterns Of
similarity may emerge. There may also be other processes occurring because
of the age Of the daughters. As the adolescent sorts through all the
information they have, deciding for themselves what to believe in and follow, it
is possible that patterns Of behavior are rejected or in fact go underground for
a period Of time. Carol Gilligan also discusses the notion that the care voice
(on which the Connected Self is partially based) goes underground when she
reports on research done on young adolescent girls. If so, and if this process
is still in place in late adolescence, it could also generate patterns Of
dissimilarity between mothers and daughters. Alternatively it may be that
opposite-sex parents really are the important agents in the development Of

these empathic and self-orientation characteristics.

61

Empathy and Connected Self

Hypothesis 6 predicted that there would be positive correlations
between the Connected Self subscale Of the RSI and Empathic Concern,
Fantasy and Perspective Taking for females with the highest correlation
between Connected Self and Empathic Concern. This prediction was only
upheld for daughters. For mothers the only positive correlation occurred
between Connected Self and Empathic Concern. Empathic Concern is the
affective component Of the Davis scale and it appears that there is some
other process which is operating for the mothers’ cognitive components Of
empathy. It is also possible that since the mothers are developmentally at a
different level than their daughters that there may be some other dynamic

operating which involves variables which were not measured in this study.

Maternal and Child Levels Of Empathy and Connection
Hypotheses 6a & 6b predicted that mothers who scored above the
median on both Empathic Concern and Connected Self would have daughters
who would score highly on both these subscales. These predictions were not
supported. Actually when the patterns Of correlations failed to follow
predictions in the simpler analyses it seemed apparent that combining scores
on subscales to make more complex predictions would not be fruitful. It
appears that the process which is occurring involving these levels Of affective
empathy and connection are more complex than proposed and may involve

variables which were not measured in this study. Some individual

L

62

Characteristics such as self-esteem, extroversion, developmental history or
levels Of depression would no doubt affect a person’s relationships. Specific
qualities Of the relationship between mother and daughter in terms Of quality
and intensity would also impact on the patterns Of similarity or lack Of it

between mothers and their daughters.

Paternal and Child Levels Of Empathy and Connection

Similar to mothers and daughters, fathers’ levels Of Empathic Concern
and connection did not predict levels Of Connected Self in their sons. They
did however predict levels Of Empathic Concern in their sons. When a son
has a father who is high on both these dimensions it apparently is a strong
enough model to affect his son in terms Of levels Of empathy. Perhaps when
the father follows a nonstereotypic pattern and is high in empathy this results
in having an impact on his sons’ levels Of empathy.

Empathy Pattem in Triads

It was predicted that families in which mothers are high in empathy and
fathers are low in empathy would have female children who scored highly in
empathy. This hypothesis was not supported. This was an attempt to replicate
a study by Barnett and King (1980) which found this in school-aged children.
Apparently having parents with this pattern does not influence college-aged
women in the same way that it does young children. Or if the previously

suggested issues having to do with emerging autonomy and with suppression

63

of parts Of the self are valid, any link would similarly be suppressed in late

adolescence but might reemerge as daughters move through adulthood.

Connected Self and Empathy Pattern; in Triads

 

Triads where both parents scored highly on the Connected Self
subscale were predicted to have children who scored high on the Connected
Self subscale. This hypothesis was not supported. In fact no relationship was
found when parents were grouped in this way.

The hypothesis that triads in which parents both scored above the
median on these subscales would have Children who scored highly on the
Connected Self and Empathic Concern subscale was similarly not supported.

Since for these analyses all three family members son or daughter,
mother and father had to respond to the survey, the N in these analyses was
greatly reduced, especially for males who were a much smaller group.

There were 16 possible combinations for the parents and four for the
children. SO the already very small N was divided among many cells for the
Chi-Square analysis. It is difficult to predict what results could have been
expected given a larger N since the intercorrelations between subscales
followed such a different pattern than predicted. Results from this data must
also be viewed with caution considering the pool of subjects was a relatively
homogeneous sample Of primarily white middle-Class college students.
However this is the same group that was used in the majority Of the research

to develop these theories. The sample of parents were the ones who chose to

64

respond tO a written survey mailed to them from their children and this may

have influenced results in a way which was not measured.

Conclusion

Parents appear to play different roles in their children’s development Of
empathy and connection. It was argued that mothers’ levels Of empathy and
connection would be related to the development Of empathy and connection
in their daughters but these predictions were not upheld. Actually the pattern
appeared to Show a greater father-child effect rather than a mother-Child
effect overall. It is possible that this is due to the stereotypic assignment of
Empathic Concern and Connected Self. It is expected in females but not in
males so when it is high in males, in this case in fathers, it may have a
greater impact. It is also possible that parents, and especially fathers, were
self-selected in terms of their levels Of connection and empathy with parents
who had a closer connection to their child being more likely to respond tO the
questionnaire. It would have been useful to have some instrument which
measured the subjects perception Of the closeness Of their relationship.
Parents levels Of education were also very high with 54% of the fathers
having a bachelor degree or higher, and 40% Of mothers having a bachelor
degree or above, this is a group with educational attainments far above the
average in the US, where only 20% Of adults have bachelor degrees. Using
median splits for analyses may have also resulted in an artificially restricted

range which impacted on the analyses. In addition, on the analyses done on

65

triads the N was very small since it was necessarily reduced to students who
had two parents respond to the survey. For parent-daughter analyses the N
was 67 and for parent-son analyses, the N was 29. These small N’s no doubt
influenced the analyses and the ability to find small differences which may
have occurred between groups. There were also almost twice as many
females in the study as males, and although the mean age for both male and
female students was identical, 19, there was a much larger range Of ages for
female students (17-50) than there was for males (17-28). There may have
also been a problem with the subscale which was Chosen to represent
empathy. Empathic Concern was Chosen since it was the primary affective
component in the Davis scale. The affective component has been frequently
identified as the central element and isolated out for measurement in previous
empathy research. Goldstein and Michaels (1985) refer to it as the
communication Of caring and consider it to be the primary dimension of
empathy. Eisenberg (1987) and Hoffman (1982b) also refer to the affective
state or affective response as the critical component in empathy. Davis’
subscales were developed to use separately and not to combine into one
global empathy score. However there is the growing recognition that cognition
comes before behavior and using only the affective component for this study
my have ignored the impact which cognition plays and thus affected the

results Of the study.

66

Obviously processes which occur between parents and children in
terms of levels Of empathy and connection involve much more than simple
socialization. Maccoby (1992) points out that the socialization of the Child by
the parent does not necessarily result in the Child turning out like the parent.
She further states that this parent-child socialization process is not one where
ways Of behaving are learned and this behavior is just reproduced with other
relationships as the child goes out into the world. As it was necessary to add
the component Of cognition to social learning theory, it is necessary to add
something to a simple socialization theory. As children develop relationships
Of their own, they bring to them something which they learned from their
parents but they also bring something unique of their own to the experience.
Maccoby proposes that we need to look at what Children learn from
experiences from their same sex peers during middle Childhood tO be able to
better answer these questions. Undoubtedly children continue to learn from
peers in adolescence as well. There is also the fact that the relationship
between parents and Children is bidirectional and we are not sure exactly Of
the mechanisms operating to affect both individuals in the relationship
(Maccoby, 1992). It is Obvious that much more research is needed tO explore

these patterns of relationships between characteristics of the parent and child.

APPENDICES

67
Appendix A

DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION: STUDENTS

. Gender: Female 2. Age (Years)
Male

. What is your college major?

 

. What is your college status?

Year: Freshman Term: First term
Sophomore Second term
Junior
Senior

Graduate Student

. DO you do volunteer work? Please describe it briefly.

. Marital status

Single Married Divorced
Cohabitating Separated WIdowed
Divorced, remarried Vlfidowed, remarried

. DO you have Children? Yes NO

If yes, how many
. Your current residence: Dorm Apartment or house

. DO you live with:

Roommate(s) Spouse or mate
Family Of origin _ By yourself
Other: Please describe

 

68

10a. Please tell us about the parent(s) you spent the most time with as
you were growing up. (If you were mostly in a single parent family,
answer for the parent whom you lived with most Of the time.)

 

 

 

 

Mother Father

Education Education

High school or less High school or less
Some college Some college
College graduate College graduate
Some graduate study Some graduate study
Graduate degree Graduate degree

 

Occupation: Please specify Occupation:

 

 

Mother Father

Percent of family
income contributed /

Percent Of child care /

10b. Did you have two parents in your home most of the time when you were
growing up? Yes NO

If your answer to 10b was no, with which parent did you live most Of the
time?
Mother Father Other relative or guardian

10c. Are your biological parents divorced: No Yes

If yes, how Old were you when they separated?

10d. If one Of the parents you described in 10a was a stepparent, which
one was it?

 

10e. Is the mother you described the one you intend to give the
questionnaire to?

69

10f. Is the father you described the one you intend to give the
questionnaire to?

11. How many brothers and sisters do you have? (If none, go to question
12). List them from Oldest to youngest by sex and age; include
adopted children and stepchildren, and include yourself. Put an S by
the entry for stepchildren; put A by entries for adopted children.

Example: Your family:

Boy, 24 S
Girl, 22
Girl, 19
Boy, 1

12. DO you belong to any organizations or groups?
Yes NO

If yes, please list them below. Then using the scale shown, put a number next
to the name Of each organization or group which shows how meaningful it is
to you.

Not meaningful . Very
at all Undecided Meaningful
1 2 3 4 5
Name Of Organization How meaningful?

 

 

What dO you think this study was about? What specific question(s) do you
think we are trying to answer? For the following, please write your answers
down in the space provide on this page.

70
Appendix B
DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION: PARENTS

Gender: Female 2. Age (Years)
Male

What is your occupation?
DO you work: Part time Full time?

 

DO you do volunteer work? Please describe it briefly.

What is your education?

High school or less
Some college
College degree
Some graduate study
Graduate degree

Marital status
Single Married Divorced
Cohabiting Separated VVIdowed
Divorced, remarried

How many children do you have? Include adopted children and
stepchildren. List them by sex and age, starting with the first born.
Put an S next to information for stepchildren, and A next to the
information for adopted children.

Example: Your family:

Girl, 29
Boy,24
Girl, 19
Boy, 15 S

Circle the name above which is the daughter or son from whom you
received this packet Of materials.

71

9. How many brothers and sisters do you have? (If none, go to question
10.) List them as you did your own Children, including yourself. Circle
your place on the list.

10. Please estimate the percent of family income and the percent Of child
care contributed by you and your spouse (if applicable).

Mother Father

Per cent of family
income contributed

 

Percent Of child care
contributed

 

11. Do you belong to any organizations or groups?

Yes NO

 

If yes, please list them below. Then using the scale shown, put a
number next tO the name of each organization or group which shows
how meaningful it is to you.

Not meaningful Undecided Very
at all meaningful
1 2 3 4 5

Name Of Omanization How Meaningful?

72

Appendix C
PARENT’S LETTER
Dear Participant: Parent

Family interaction patterns take many different forms. We are interested in
how different family interaction patterns are related to similarity or differences
in family members’ orientations toward self and relationships, and in other
personal attributes. This packet Of materials contains measures Of each Of
these; the packets completed by other members Of your family contain similar
materials. We are asking for your help in completing these measures. Most
people are able to finish in 45 minutes to an hour. Please wait to discuss any
Of the materials until afig all family members have finished their own packets.

Your answers are confidential. DO not put your name or other identifying
information on any of the research materials. Participation is strictly voluntary.
You may choose not tO participate at all or to stop at any time without any
penalty to your Child. Packets from a given family will have the same number,
but we will have no way Of knowing what family filled out any set Of packets.
YOU are free to omit material, or to stop at any point; but we hope that you
will complete all Of the materials.

YOU may return materials to us by sending them back with the child who
addressed them to you, or by mailing them to us at the address below.
Please mail back the packet and your answer sheet. Keep the instruction
letters in case you wish to contact us. Use the enclosed envelope tO return
your completed materials. The pencil is yours, with our compliments. If you
wish to be reimbursed for postage, write to us separately giving your address
and postage costs.

Brief summaries Of our study will be available once it is completed. If you are
interested in receiving a copy of this summary, please send us a post card
with your name and address. Ask for the results Of the Student-Parent Study
1.

To be sure you understand your rights as a research participant, read these
statements carefully:

I freely consent to take part in the study being conducted by Professors
Donelson and Strommen Of the Department Of Psychology. I understand that
the study is about orientation toward relationships and personal attributes,
and that my part in the study is to complete a questionnaire.

73

I understand that I am free not to participate at all or that I can stop at any
time without penalty.

I understand that responses made are strictly confidential and that I will
remain anonymous. WIthin these restrictions, results of this study will be
made available to me at my request. In addition, at my request I can receive
additional explanation Of the study after my participation is completed.

I understand that my participation does not guarantee any beneficial results tO
me.

I understand that my compliance in completing the questionnaire constitutes
my informed consent for participation in the study.

If you do not understand any statement, or if you want more information
before beginning the questionnaire, please call one of us at the numbers
listed below. If you agree with the statements, then go ahead and begin work
on the questionnaire.

Thank you for your participation in this project.

Elaine Donelson, Professor Ellen Strommen, Professor
Department Of Psychology Department of Psychology
Michigan State University Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824 East Lansing, MI 48824

(517) 353-3936 (517) 353-3935

74

Appendix D
STUDENT’S INSTRUCTIONS

Dear Participant: Student

Family interaction patterns take many different forms. We are interested in
how different family interaction patterns are related to similarity or difference
in family members’ orientations toward self and relationships, and in other
personal attributes. This packet of materials contains measures Of each of
these; the packets completed by other members Of your family contain similar
materials. We are asking for your help in completing these measures. Please
wait to discuss any of the materials until gfipg all family members have
finished their own packets.

Your answers are confidential. DO not put your name or other identifying
information on any of the research materials. Packets from a given family will
have the same number, but we will have no way Of knowing what family filled
out any set Of packets. You are free to omit material, or tO stop at any point;
but we hope that you will complete all Of the materials.

Brief summaries Of our study will be available once it is completed. If you are
interested in receiving a copy Of this summary, please leave your name and
address on the list kept for this purpose as you leave the session. Be sure,
tOO, to sign your name on the experiment participation sheet.

TO be sure you understand your rights as a research participant, read these
statements carefully:

I freely consent to take part in the study being conducted by Professors
Donelson and Strommen Of the Department of Psychology. I understand that
the study is about orientation toward relationships and

personal attributes, and that my part in the study is to complete a
questionnaire.

I understand that I can stop at any time without penalty.

I understand that responses made are strictly confidential and that I will
remain anonymous. Within these restrictions, results Of this study will be
made available to me at my request. In addition, at my request I can receive
additional explanation Of the study after my participation is completed.

I understand that my participation does not guarantee any beneficial results to
me.

75

I understand that my compliance in completing the questionnaire constitutes
my informed consent for participation in the study.

If you do not understand any statement, please ask for clarification. If you
agree with the statements, then go ahead and begin work on the
questionnaire.

Thank you for your assistance in completing the questionnaire.

Elaine Donelson Ellen Strommen
Professor Professor
353-3936 353-3935

355-9561 (messages) 355-9561 (messages)

76

Appendix E
DAVIS INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY INDEX (IRI)
BY SCALE

Please read each statement and chose the number which best describes you.
Then fill in the corresponding space on your answer sheet.

Does not describe Describes me
me well very well
0 1 2 3 4
Fantasy
1. l daydream and fantasize, with some regularity,

about things that might happen tO me ........

 

5. I really get involved with the feelings Of the
characters in a novel ..........

 

7. I am usually Objective when I watch a movie
or play, and I don’t often get completely
caught up in it .......

 

12. Becoming extremely involved in a good book or
movie is somewhat rare for me ......

 

16. After seeing a play or movie, I have felt as
though I were one Of the Characters...

 

23. When I watch a good movie, I can very easily
put myself in the place of the leading character...

 

26. When I am reading an interesting story or novel,
I imagine how_l_would feel if the events in the
story were happening to me .....

 

Perspective Taking

3. I sometimes find it difficult to see things from
the ”other guy’s" point Of view ........

 

11.

15.

21.

25.

28.

14.

18.

20.

22.

77

I try to look at everybody’s side Of a disagreement
before I make a decision .....

I sometimes try to understand my friends better

by imagining how things look from their perspective ......

If I’m sure I’m right about something, I don’t

waste much time listening to other people’s arguments ......

I believe that there are two sides to every
question and try to look at them both...

When I’m upset at someone, I usually try to
"put myself in his shoes” for awhile ............

Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine
how I would feel if I were in their place .....

Empathic Connection

I often have tender, concerned feelings for
people less fortunate than me .........

Sometime I don’t feel very sorry for people
less fortunate than me ........

When I see someone being taken advantage Of,
I feel kind Of protective towards them .....

Other people’s misfortunes do not
usually disturb me a great deal .......

When I see someone being treated unfairly,
I sometimes don’t feel very much pity for them...

I am Often quite touched by things that
I see happen...

I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted
person .......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10.

13.

17.

19.

24.

27.

78

Personal Distress
In emergency situations, I feel apprehensive
and ill-at-ease .......

I sometimes feel helpless when I am in the
middle Of a very emotional situation ........

When I see someone get hurt, I tend to
remain calm .....

Being in a tense emotional situation scares me....

I am usually pretty effective in dealing with
emergencies...

I tend to lose control during emergencies .......

When I see someone who badly needs help in an
emergency, I go to pieces .......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

79
Appendix F
THE RELATIONSHIP SELF INVENTORY (RSI) BY SCALES
Instructions: Read each statement below and decide how much it describes

you. Using the following rating scale, select the most appropriate response
and blacken the corresponding circle on your answer sheet.

Not like Very much
me at all like me
1 2 3 4 5

SEPARATE SELF SCALE

47. I believe that in order to survive I must concentrate more on taking
care Of myself than on taking care Of others.

13. I try not tO think about the feelings Of others when there is a
principle at at stake.

34. Even though I am sensitive to others’ feelings, I make decisions
based on what I feel is best for me.

43. The feelings of others are not relevant when deciding what is right.

58. I try to approach relationships with the same organization and
efficiency as I approach my work.

3. I cannot Choose to help someone else if it will hinder my
self-development.
53. I cannot afford to give attention to the opinions of others when

when I am certain I am correct.

9. Loving is like a contract; if its provisions aren’t met, you wouldn’t
love the person any more.

21. When a friend traps me with demands and negotiation has not worked
I am likely to end the friendship.

6. I find it hard to sympathize with people whose misfortunes I believe
are due mainly to their own shortcomings.

45. I make decisions based upon what I believe is best for me and mine.

10.

33.

52.

19.

14.

26.

46.

15.

55.

49.

54.

60.

27.

37.

41.

20.

36.

80

In my everyday life I am guided by the notion Of "an eye for an eye and
a tooth for a tooth”.

What it all boils down to is that the only person I can rely on is myself.

You’ve got to lOOk out for yourself or the demands of Circumstances
and other people will eat you up.

I believe that I have tO lOOk out for myself and mine, and let others
shift for themselves.

I don’t Often do much for others unless they can do some good for me
later on.

People who don’t work hard to accomplish respectable goals can’t
expect me to help when they’re in trouble.

Once I’ve worked out my position on an issue I stick to it.
CONNECTED SELF SCALE

Activities Of care that I perform expand both me and others.

Caring about other people is important to me.

Doing things for others makes me happy.

If someone does something for me, I reciprocate by doing something
for them.

I like to acquire many acquaintances and friends.
Relationships are a central part Of my identity.
Those about whom I care deeply are part of who I am.

I is necessary for me to take responsibility for the effect my actions
have on others.

Being unselfish with others is a way I make myself happy.

I like to see myself as interconnected with a network Of friends.

12.

18.

50.

29.

30.

22.

40.

48.

25.

16.

28.

81

I believe that one Of the most important things that parents can teach
their children is how to cooperate and live in harmony with others.

I am guided by the principle Of treating others as I want to be treated.
PRIMACY OF OTHER CARE SCALE
All you really need to do to help someone is to love them.

If someone Offers to do something for me, I should accept the Offer
even if I really want something else.

The worst thing that could happen in a friendship would be to have
my friend reject me.

I feel empty if I’m not Closely involved with someone else.

I Often try to act on the belief that self-interest is one Of the worst
problems facing society.

The people whom I admire are those who seem tO be in close personal
relationships.

The best way tO help someone is to do what they ask even if you don’t
really want to do it.

Being unselfish with others is more important than making myself
happy.

I feel that my development has been shaped more by the persons I
care about than what I do or accomplish.

I try to curb my anger for fear of hurting others.

In making decisions, I can neglect my own values in order to keep a
relationship.

If what I want to do upsets other people, I try to think again to see if
I really want to do it.

I Often keep quiet rather than hurt someone’s feelings, even if it
means giving them a false impression.

42.

23.

56.

11.

17.

51.

44.

39.

35.

24.

59.

38.

32.

57.

82

A close friend is someone who will help you whenever you need help
and knows that you will help if they need it.

SELF AND OTHER CARE CHOSEN FREELY SCALE

True responsibility involves making sure my needs are cared for as
well as the needs Of others.

Sometimes I have to accept hurting someone else.

I other people are going to sacrifice something they want for my
sake I want them to understand what they are doing.

I want to learn to stand on my own two feet.
I do not want others to be responsible for me.
I deserve the love Of others as much as they deserve my love.

I someone asks me for a favor l have a responsibility to think about
whether or not I want to do the favor.

I believe that I must care for myself because others are not responsible
for me.

Even though it’s difficult, I have learned to say no tO others when
I need to take care Of myself.

In order to continue a relationship it has to let both Of us grow.

If I am to help another person it is important to me to understand my
own motives.

I want to be responsible for myself.
I accept my Obligations and expect others to do the same.

Before I can be sure I really care for someone I have to know my true
feelings.

When I make a decision it’s important tO use my own values to make
the right Choice.

83

31. If I am really sure that what I want to do is right, I do it even if it
upsets others.

84
APPENDIX G

STUDENT-PARENT STUDY
Post-Session Feedback

Our research program is focused around concepts about self and how those
concepts involve relationships with other people. Particularly, we have been
developing an instrument to measure some aspects Of self-in-relationship--
the Relationship Self Inventory, RSI. The concept Of relationship self style
refers tO whether a person tends to organize the self around relationships with
other persons--the Relational Self--or around individual personal development
and achievement--the Separate/Objective Self. Both kind Of people enjoy and
value other people but simply have a different style Of relating to others and
tO themselves. Most Of us show some Of both types Of self style, but in
general, the Relational Self is thought to be more characteristic Of women,
while the Separate/Objective Self is thought to be more characteristic Of men.

Similarly, while most people show some feminine and some masculine
attributes, most men tend to score higher on scales Of masculinity and women
on scales Of femininity. In a previous study, we did find that a measure Of
masculinity is associated with the Separate/Objective Self while a measure of
femininity is associated with the Relationship Self, though there were some
interesting twists. For example, the relationship between Masculinity and
Separate/Objective scale was stronger for women than for men (r=.29 vs
r=.10 ) while Femininity was more strongly correlated negatively for men than
for women (r=-41 vs r=-.11). We have also related the RSI scores to other
measures and generally shown that the RSI is a workable useful instrument.

Now, we are trying to find out more about relationship self styles and how
they might develop. Thus, we included other measures tO help us understand
relationship self styles. And, we asked you to volunteer your parents to
participate. We expect that parents’ answers will give us useful Clues about
how some Of the views Of students might have developed.

Obviously we do not have the results of this study but we can tell you about
some of the measures used in the study and what we expect. The first
questionnaire you filled out was the RSI. At the end Of it was a short

list Of adjectives tO rate. Those are from the Bem Sex Role Inventory, giving a
quick measure Of femininity and masculinity so we may see if previous results
hold. The next set of questions was the Davis measure Of empathy. Empathy
is though to be important in interpersonal interactions but not much is known
about it. Our question is, do people who have a stronger relationship self than
separates self have higher empathy scores? The next instrument you

85

completed, the Intimacy Interaction Index is a new instrument we are using
for the first time. It is aimed at finding out people’s views about some of the
relationships they have--are they meaningful, growthful, conflictful, frustrating.
In this case, relations between parents and students are of the most concern.
The final measure was a measure Of Early Memories. We expect some
relationship between how people see themselves now and the early memory
reported. For example, a fond memory Of a parent and a relationship-self
style now, or a memory Of being alone and having a separate-self style now.

The last page you filled out was a straight-fonlvard measure Of some
demographic information SO that we can describe the basic features Of the
people who participate in this research. What is true for one group Of people
might not be true for others. Some items may also help us understand what
kind Of people tend to have one style more than the other, and why. At the
end Of the Demographic Information, we asked you what you thought the
study was all about. Sometime research participants do develop ideas about
a study. Their ideas can be relevant in understanding the results.
Sometimes, this "debriefing" information gives Clues about how to improve the
research. DO you think that what you thought the study was about affected
the answers you gave?

We did not tell you all the details at the beginning Of the research session
because knowing What the instruments were measuring could have set up
expectations for how they are related to one another and distorted the results.
Because your parents have not yet participate in the study, it is important that
you not tell them anything about the study. Before they record their answers,
they should know only what you knew before starting to answer the packet.
Of course, after they have sent in their answers, you may share this
information.

If you would like tO discuss our work, please get in touch with US by calling or
leaving a note in our mailbox in Room 137 Snyder Hall.

Professor Ellen Strommen Professor Elaine Donelson
125 Snyder Hall 408 Baker Hall

353-3935 353-3936

messages: 355-9561 messages: 353-8690

Recommended reading: Gilligan, Carol (1982). In a different voice.
Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press.

86
Appendix H

STUDENT EDUCATIONAL PRESENTATION

Thank you for coming. As your instructor probably has told you, the
Psychology Department requires an educational presentation when students
participate in research. Because you will be leaving at different times we are
giving that educational presentation now. What we are going to discuss is the
kind of information about families that we expect to get with our particular
method compared to other methods.

One of the aims of this study is to compare the responses of young adults
and their parents on several psychological measures. Therefore, we are
asking you to participate in this research session and to address packets of
similar materials we will send to your parents. Since we are getting the
information from you and your parents at about the same time, this is a
cross-sectional study. In a cross-sectional study, people at two or more
different ages are compared. In this case, you and your parents.

Our primary interest in this study is in some characteristics that have only
recently been defined. Theories suggest there should be patterns of
similarities and differences between parents and children. Though no one has
yet checked it out in a research study. So the first question to be asked is
whether or not there are any patterns of similarities and differences. There
may not be, and if there are, what are they?

Of course, if we find associations, we are going to want to know how they
came into being--and there we run into some limitations of cross-sectional
designs such as this. For that, it would be necessary to know what kinds of
parental influences there were in your home as you were growing up and how
they operated. For example, did you learn by modeling, through observation
of how your mother or your father acted? Or did thy teach you to be
different from them? Was there specific training, with rewards and
punishments? Were there values which your parents applied in judging what
people did, including things that you did, so that you learned these values as
bases for viewing different actions as good or bad? Questions like these
ideally require a longitudinal study-~one in which the researchers start working
with families while children are young, and continue studying these same
families over a period of time. In this way, you can look to see whether
certain interactions or patterns of training in earlier years are associated with
development of the characteristics you are interested in as the children grow
up. However, longitudinal studies are expensive and very time-consuming.
One the other hand, if studies such as the one we are doing indicate that the

87

expected correlations exists, then some kind of longitudinal study would be
appropriate.

There are short-cuts which try to get at some of the information usually
provided by a longitudinal study. One of these is to ask parents and children
to try to remember what things were like in earlier years. Studies which ask
people to remember previous times are retrospective. A serious problem with
the retrospective method is there is a lot we tend to forget. Even what we
remember is likely to be distorted in various ways. For example, people often
tend to remember themselves more positively than records show. We also
tend to reinterpret the past in light of our present views and understanding. If
a college student thinks of herself as shy, she is likely to describe her
five-year old self as shy even though records of her at the time do not show
her as being any more shy than other children. For these reasons,
retrospective methods may not always give a very accurate picture.

Another approach starts with the assumption that the important thing is
not how parents actually acted while you were growing up, but your
perceptions of what they were like. That is, instead of asking both child and
parents for information, you have the child tell you about the parents as well
as about themselves. We are not using either of these approaches. Instead
we are asking you and your parents separately to tell us what each of you are
like as you are now. We can then look to see what kinds of similarities and
what kinds of differences there are among you and your parents. Depending
on what we learn, we can then proceed to ask how the patterns we find might
have come into being. This is the kind of information which could lead to
actually doing a longitudinal study some time in the future.

Are there any questions?

Please wait to begin until I have gone through the top sheet marked
INSTRUCTIONS FOR STUDENTS with you.

88
Appendix I

RELATIONSHIP SELF INVENTORY

Correlation Coefficients for Daughters Relational Self Inventory, all Subscales

 

 

(N = 288)

Sepobj Conrel Poc Soc
Sepobj ..... -23 *** -19 *** 42 *1"
COHTGI _---- 39 *** 29 ***
POC _____ _19 ***
Soc .....

 

* Q _<_ .05. ** Q _<_ .01, *** p _<_ .001, two-tailed

Correlation Coefficients for Son’s Relational Self Inventory, all Subscales

 

 

(N = 135)

Sepobj Conrel Poc Soc
3990b] ----- -.15 -22 ** _33 ***
Conrel ..... .44 «m .36 I...
P00 ----- a13
Soc .....

 

* Q 5 .05. ** Q 5 .01, *** p 5 .001, two-tailed

Correlation Coefficients for Mothers Relational Self Inventory, all Subscales

 

 

(N = 162)

Sepobj Conrel Poc Soc
Sepobj ----- -.2o * ..07 _35
Conrel ..... _47 *** .16 *
POC ----- firs
Soc _____

 

* Q E -05. ** Q 5 .01, *** Q _<_ .001, two-tailed

89

Correlation Coefficients for Fathers Relational Self Inventory, all Subscales (N

 

 

= 141)

Sepobj Conrel Poc Soc
SepObj ----- -09 _-___ .53 ***
Conre| _____ 53 man: 36 ***
Poc ---- .20 *
Soc --..-

 

* Q E .05. ** Q 5 .01, *** Q 5 .001, two-tailed

90
Appendix J

Correlation Coefficients for Mothers’ and Daughters” Empathy Scores on all
Subscales (N = 106)

 

 

(DAUGHTERS)
DFantasy DPertak DEmpcon DPerdis
(MOTHERS)
MFantasy .05 .01 .06 -. 14
MPertak -.06 .04 .11 .01
MEmpcon .17 .02 .20“ .04
MPerdis .12 .14 .05 .07

 

* Q S .05. ** p_ 5 .01, *** g 1.001, two-tailed

Correlation Coefficients for Mothers’ and Sons’ Empathy Scores on all
Subscales (N = 50 )

 

 

(SONS)
SFantasy SPertak SEmpcon SPerdis
(MOTHERS)
MFantasy .26* .22 .19 .07
MPertak .07 .17 .25 .17
MEmpcon .17 .07 26* .32*
MPerdis .01 .13 -.05 -.01

 

* Q _<_ .05, ** p <_.01, *** p _<_ .001, two-tailed

91

Correlation Coefficients for Fathers’ and Daughters’ Empathy Scores on all
Subscales (N = 92)

 

 

(DAUGHTERS)
DFantasy DPertak DEmpcon DPerdis
(FATHERS)
FFantasy .10 .09 -.01 .11
FPertak .21 .00 .03 .12
FEmpcon .22 -.01 .08 .26
FPerdis -.00 -.01 -.06 .08

 

* Q S .05. ** Q 5 .01, *** Q 5 .001, two-tailed

Correlation Coefficients for Fathers’ and Sons’ Empathy Scores on all
Subscales (N = 41)

 

 

(SONS)
SFantasy SPertak SEmpcon SPerdis
(FATHERS)
F Fantasy .07 .13 .19 .24
FPertak -.03 .20 .08 -.01
FEmpcon .01 .12 .51*** .22
FPerdis -.12 -.10 -.17 -.02

 

* Q 5 .05. ** Q 5 .01, *** p 5 .001, two-tailed

92
Appendix K

Correlation Coefficients for Mothers’ and Daughters’ Relational Self Inventory,
all Subscales (N = 106)

 

 

(DAUGHTERS)
DSepobj DConrel DPoc DSoccf
(MOTHERS)
MSepobj .16 -.09 .01 .00
MConrel -.07 -.06 .08 -.18
MPoc -.13 -.10 .13 -.30 **
MSoccf -.01 -.13 -.09 -.05

 

* P. <_.-05. ** Q 5 .01, *** p 5 .001, two-tailed

Correlation Coefficients for Mothers’ and Sons’ Relational Self Inventory, all
Subscales (N = 50)

 

 

(SONS)
SSepobj SConrel SPoc SSoccf
(MOTHERS)
MSepobj .05 -.07 .01 .07
MConrel .10 .09 .30* .04
MPoc .04 -.05 .12 -.09
MSoccf -.10 -.03 .07 -.02

 

* Q _<. .05. ** p_ 5 .01, g 5 .001, two-tailed

 

93

Correlation Coefficients for Fathers’ and Daughters’ Relational Self Inventory,
all Subscales (N = 92)

 

 

(DAUGHTERS)
DSepobj DConrel DPoc DSoccf
(FATHERS)
FSepobj .23* .06 -.1 1 .26“
FConrel -.06 .09 .25* -.13
FPoc -.18 .00 .30" -.10
FSoccf .04 .07 -.12 .17

 

 

* Q 5 .05. ** Q 5 .01, *** p 5 .001, two-tailed

Correlation Coefficients for Fathers and Sons Relational Self Inventory, all
Subscales (N = 41)

 

 

(SONS)
SSepobj SConrel SPoc SSoccf
(FATHERS)
FSepobj .27 .09 .10 .26
FConreI .09 .17 .14 -.13
FPoc .01 .10 .20 -.21
FSoccf .40" .02 .00 .30

 

* P. < -05. ** Q < .01, *** g < .001, two-tailed

94
APPENDIX L

ANOVAS FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN WAVES

Daughters Personal Distress by Wave (N = 288)

 

 

Variable Sum of DF Mean F Sig of
Squares Square F

Between 108.2827 1 108.2827 5.1131 .0245

Groups

VVIthII'I 6056.7138 286 21 .1773

Groups

 

Total 6164.9965 287

Mother’s Personal Distress by Wave (N = 162)

 

 

Variable Sum of DF Mean F Sig of
Squares Square F

Between 320.0039 1 320.0039 9.8606 .0020

Groups

Vlfithin 5192.4406 160 32 .4528

Groups

 

Total 5512.4444 161

95
Son’s Personal Distress by Wave (N = 135)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Sum of DF Mean F Sig of
Squares Square F

Between 110.1708 1 110.1708 5.482 .0169

Groups

Within 2505.4884 133 18.8383

Groups

Total 2615.6593 134

Father’s Primacy of Other Care by Wave (N = 141)

Variable Sum of DF Mean F Sig of
Squares Square F

Between 1.6028 1 1.6028 6.7220 .0105

Groups

VIfithin 33.1443 139 .2384

Groups

Total 34.7471 140

 

96

Son’s Connected Self by Wave (N = 135)

 

 

 

Variable Sum of DF Mean F Sig of
Squares Square F

Between .89888 1 .8988 5.2147 .0240

Groups

Within 22 .9235 133 .1724

Groups

Total 23.8223 134

 

REFERENCES

 

References

Archer, R.L., Foushee, H. C., Davis, M. H., & Aderman, D. (1979). Emotional

empathy in courtroom simulation: A person-situation interaction. Journal

of Applied Social Psychology, p, 275-291.

Bandura, A., & McDonald, F. (1963). The influence of social reinforcement
and the behavior of models in shaping children’s moral judgment.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 274-281.

Barnett, M. A., Mathews, K. A., & Howard, J. A. (1979). Relationship between
competitiveness and empathy in 6- and 7-year olds. Developmental
Psychology, 15, 221-222.

Barnett, M. A., King, L. M., Howard, J. A., & Dino, G. (1980). Empathy in
young children: Relations to parents’ empathy, affection, and emphasis
on the feelings of others. Developmental Psychology, 15, 243-244.

Bryant, B. K. (1982). An index of empathy of children and adolescents. Child
Development. 53, 413-425.

Bryant, B. (1985). The neighborhood walk: Sources of support in middle
childhood. Monographs; of the Societv for Research in Child
Development. @(3), Serial No. 210.

Cherry, L., & Lewis, M. (1976). Mothers and two-year-olds: A study of
sex-differentiated aspects of verbal interaction. Developmental
Psychology, 12, 278-282.

Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in
empathy. JSAS (gtalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individaul differences in empathy: Evidence
for a multidimensional approach. Jpgrnal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45(1), 113-126.

Dunn, J., Bretherton, I., & Munn, P. (1987). Conversations about feeling

states between mothers and their children. Developmental Psychology,
23, 132-139.

97

f

Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. L. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and
related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 100-131.

Eisenberg, N., & Miller, PA. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial
and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91-119.

Eisenberg, N., & Strayer, J. 91987). Critical issues in the study of empathy,

In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds), Empathy and its development (pp.
3-130. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Eisenberg-Berg, N. (1979). The development of children’s prosocial moral
judgement. Developmental Psychology, fi, 128-137.

Erikson, EH. (1950). Childhood and socieg. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Feshbach, ND. (1982). Sex differences in empathy and social behavior in
children. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.) The @elppment of prosocial pehavior
(pp. 315-338). New York: Academic Press.

Feshbach, N.D. & Roe, K. (1968). Empathy in six- and seven-year-olds. Child
Development, a, 133-145.

Frank, S. J., Avery, C. B., & Laman., M. S. (1988). Young Adults’
Perceptions of Their Relationships With Their Parents: Individual
Differences in Connectedness, Competence, and Emotional Autonomy.
Devemmental Psychology, 2_4(5), 729-737.

Freud, A. (1946). The ego and the mechanisms of defense. New York:
International Universities Press.

Gibbs, J. G. & W0", 8. (1985). Mechanisms used by young children in the
making of empathic judgments. Journal of Personality. QM).

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s
development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Gilligan, C., Lyons, N. P., 8 Hanmer, T. J. (1989). Makigg Connectiong: The
Relational Worlds of Adolescent Girls at Emma V\fillard School. Troy,
New York: Emma Willard School.

Goldstein, A. P., & Michaels, G. Y. (1985). Empathy: Development. training;
and conseguences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

98

99

Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psycholggical
Bulletin 8_5, 845-857.

 

Hoffman, L. W. (1977). Changes in family roles, socialization and sex
differences. American Psychologigt, 3_2_, 644-657.

Hoffman, M. L. (1963). Parent discipline and the child’s consideration of
others. Chilg Development. 35, 573-588.

Hoffman, M. L. (1977b). Sex differences in empathy and related behaviors.
Psychological Bulletin, 55, 712-722.

Hoffman, M. S. (1981). Perspectives on the difference between
understanding people and understanding things. The role of affect. In
J.H. Flavell & L. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive development: Frontier and
possible futures (pp. 67-81). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hoffman, M. L. (1982b). Development of prosocial motivation: Empathy and
guilt. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The development of prosflgl befivior (pp.
281-313). New York: Academic Press.

Hoffman, M. L. (1984). Empathy, its limitations, and its role in a
comprehensive moral theory. In. W. Kurtines and J. Gewirtz (Eds.),
Morality. moral pehavior and moral gevelopment. New York: Wiley.

Hoffman, M. L. (1988). Moral development. In M.H. Bornstein & M.E. Lamb
(Eds) Developmental psychology: An advancegy textbook (2nd ed), pp.
497-548.

Jordan, J. (1984). Empathy and self-boundries. Work in Progress, No. 16.
Wellesley, MA: Stone Center Working Papers Series.

Jordon, J., Surrey, J., & Kaplan, A. (1983). Women and empathy. Work in
m No. 2. Wellesley, MA: Stone Center Working Paper Series.

Lennon, R., 8. Eisenberg, N. (1987). Gender and age differences in empathy
and sympathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds), Empathy and its
development (pp. 195-217). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.

Lennon, R., Eisenberg, N., & Carroll, J. (1983). The assessment of empathy
in early childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 4,
295-302.

100

Levinson, D. (1978). The Seasons of a Man’s Life. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.

Lytton, H., & Romney, 0M. (1991). Parents’ differential socialization of boys
and girls: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 1_0§(2), 267-296.

Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An
historical overview. DevelopmerLarl Psychology, &(5). 1006-1017.

Maccoby, E.E., & Jacklin, ON. (1974). The psychology of sex differences.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Mahler, M., Pine, F., & Bergman, A. (1975). The psychological birth of the
human infant: Symbfiiopsis and individuation. New York: Basic Books.

Margolin, G., & Patterson, G. R. (1975). Differential consequences provided
by mothers and fathers for their sons and daughters. Developmental
Psychology, 1_1_, 537-538.

Marsh, D. T., Serafica, F., & Barenboim, C. (1981). Interrelationships among
perspective taking, interpersonal problem-solving and interpersonal
functioning. Journal of Genetic P§ychology, fig, 37-48.

Martin, G.B., & Clark, R.D. III. (1982). Distress crying in neonates: Species
and peer specificity. Develgpmental Psychology, 1_8_, 3-9.

Mehrabian, A. and Epstein, N. (1972) . A measure of emotional empathy.
Journal of Personality. 59(4), 525-543.

Miller, J.B. (1984). The development of women’s sense of self. Work in
Prggress No. 12. Wellesley, MA: Stone Center Working Paper Series.

Nunnally, J.C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.

Pearson, J.L., Reinhart, M., Strommen, E. A., Donelson, E., Barnes, 0.,
Blank, L., Cebollero, A., Cornwell, K., Kamptner, N. L. (1985).
Connected and Separate Selves: Development of an Inventory and
Initial Validation. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the
Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto.

101

Reinhart, M., Pearson, J. L., Kamptner, N. L., Cornwell, K., Barnes, C. L.,
Strommen, E. A., & Donelson, E. (1985). Assessment of Gilligan’s
model: Development of the Relationship Self Inventory. Paper
presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Toronto, Canada.

Shure, M. B. (1982). Interpersonal problem solving: A cog in the wheel of
social cognition. In F. Serafica (Ed.), Social-Comitive Development in
Context (pp.133-166). New York: Guilford Press.

Surrey, J. The self-in-relation: A theory of women’s development. Work ip
m. Wellesley, Mass: Stone Center Working Papers Series, 1984.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Friedman, S., & Cummings, E. (1983). Children’s
emotions and behaviors in response to infants’ cries. Child
Develomnent. _5_Q, 319-330.

 

"llllllllllllllllr