Recent research suggests that social support is more beneficial when it is provided invisibly (subtly and without recipient awareness); however, what is still unknown is who is most likely to provide invisible support. The hypothesis that support providers exhibiting greater empathic accuracy are more likely to provide invisible support is tested in two studies of committed romantic couples: a month-long diary study in a highly stressful situation (Study 1, n = 311 couples) and an in-lab social observation study in which one member discusses a mildly stressful personal goal (Study 2, n = 85 couples). In Study 1, providers exhibiting greater empathic accuracy on a given day were more likely to provide invisible practical support the same day. In Study 2, providers’ empathic accuracy was positively associated with their provision of invisible practical support during the interaction (both coded by trained observers). Similar findings did not emerge for emotional support.
BolgerN.AmarelD. (2007). Effects of social support visibility on adjustment to stress: Experimental evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 458–475. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.458
2.
BolgerN.KesslerR. C.ZuckermanA. (2000). Invisible support and adjustment to stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 953–961. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.953
3.
ByronK. (2008). Differential effects of male and female managers’ non-verbal emotional skills on employees’ ratings. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 118–134. doi:10.1108/02683940810850772
4.
CohenS.SchulzM. S.WeissE.WaldingerR. J. (2012). Eye of the beholder: The individual and dyadic contributions of empathic accuracy and perceived empathic effort to relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 236–245. doi:10.1037/a0027488
5.
CôtéS.ChengB. H.van der LöweI.KrausM. W.OveisC.LianH.KeltnerD. (2011). Social power facilitates the effect of prosocial orientation on empathic accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 217–232. doi:10.1037/a0023171
6.
CranfordJ. A.ShroutP. E.IidaM.RafaeliE.YipT.BolgerN. (2006). A procedure for evaluating sensitivity to within-person change: Can mood measures in diary studies detect change reliably?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 917–929. doi:10.1177/0146167206287721
7.
DemurieE.De CorelM.RoeyersH. (2011). Empathic accuracy in adolescents with autism spectrum disorders and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1, 126–134. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2010.03.002
8.
FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG. (2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 340–354. doi:10.1177/0146167200265007
9.
FritzM. S.McKinnonD. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18, 233–239. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x
10.
Giner-SorollaR. (2012). Science or art? Ho aesthetic standards grease the way through the publication bottleneck but undermine science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 562–751. doi:10.1177/1745691612457576
11.
GirmeY. U.OverallN. C.SimpsonJ. A. (2013). When visibility matters: Short-term versus long-term costs and benefits of visible and invisible support. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 39, 1441–1454. doi:10.1177/0146167213497802
12.
GleasonK. A.Jensen-CampbellL. A.IckesW. (2009). The role of empathic accuracy in adolescents’ peer relations and adjustment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 997–1011. doi:10.1177/0146167209336605
13.
GleasonM. E. J.IidaM. (2015). Social support. In SimpsonJ.DovidioJ. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, volume 2: Interpersonal relationships and group processes (pp. 351–370). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
14.
GoldbergL. R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.59.6.1216
15.
HaugenP. T.WelshD. P.McNultyJ. K. (2008). Empathic accuracy and adolescent romantic relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 709–727. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.03.003
16.
HowlandM.RafaeliE. (2010). Assessing empathic accuracy with daily diary data. Journal of Personality, 78, 1437–1468. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00657.x
17.
HowlandM.SimpsonJ. A. (2010). Getting in under the radar: A dyadic view of invisible support. Psychological Science, 21, 1878–1885.
18.
HowlandM.SimpsonJ. A. (2013). Attachment orientations and reactivity to aggressive humor in a social support context. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. doi:10.1177/0265407513488016
19.
IckesW. (2003). Everyday mind reading. New York, NY: Prometheus Books.
20.
IckesW.HodgesS. D. (2013). Empathic accuracy in close relationships. In SimpsonJ. A.CampbellL. (Eds.), Handbook of close relationships (pp. 348–373). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
21.
IckesW.SimpsonJ. A. (2001). Motivational aspects of empathic accuracy. In FletcherG. J. O.ClarkM. S. (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Interpersonal Processes (pp. 229–249). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
22.
KennyD.KashyD.CookW. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
23.
KilpatrickS. D.BissonnetteV. L.RusbultC. E. (2002). Empathic accuracy and accommodative behavior among newly married couples. Personal Relationships, 9, 369–393. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.09402
24.
LorrM.McNairD. M. (1971). The profile of mood states manual. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
25.
MaiselN.GableS. (2009). The paradox of received social support: The importance of responsiveness. Psychological Science, 20, 928–932. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02388.x
26.
Ma-KellamsC.BlascovichJ. (2012). Inferring the emotions of friends versus strangers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 933–945. doi:10.1177/0146167212440291
27.
MarangoniC.GarciaS.IckesW.TengG. (1995). Empathic accuracy in a clinically-relevant setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 854–869. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.854
28.
RauersA.BlankeE.RiedigerM. (2013). Everyday empathic accuracy in younger and older couples: Do you need to see your partner to know his or her feelings?Psychological Science. doi:10.1177/0956797613490747
29.
ReisH. T. (2003). A self-report measure of perceived partner responsiveness. Unpublished manuscript, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
30.
ReisH. T.ClarkM. S.HolmesJ. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In MashekD.AronA. (Eds.), The handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31.
ShroutP.BolgerN.IidaM.BurkeC.GleasonM. E. J.LaneS. (2010). The effects of daily support transactions during acute stress: Results from a diary study of Bar Exam preparation. In SullivanK. T.DavilaJ. (Eds.), Support processes in intimate relationships (pp. 175–199). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
32.
ShroutP.HermanC. M.BolgerN. (2006). The costs and benefits of practical and emotional support on adjustment: A daily diary study of couples experiencing acute stress. Personal Relationships, 13, 115–134. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00108.x
33.
SimpsonJ. A.IckesW.OrinaM. (2001). Empathic accuracy and preemptive relationship maintenance. In HarveyJ. H.WenzelA. (Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhancement (pp. 27–46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34.
SimpsonJ. A.KimJ. S.FilloJ.IckesW.RholesW. S.OrinaM. M.WinterheldH. (2011). Attachment and the management of empathic accuracy in relationship-threatening situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 242–254. doi:10.1177/0146167210394368
35.
SpanierG. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28.
36.
StinsonL.IckesW. (1992). Empathic accuracy in the interactions of male friends versus male strangers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 787–797. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.5.787
37.
ThomasG.FletcherG. J. O.LangeC. (1997). On-line empathic accuracy in marital interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 839–850. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.4.839
38.
VerhofstatdtL. L.BuysseA.IckesW.DavisM.DevoldreI. (2008). Support provision in marriage: The role of emotional similarity and empathic accuracy. Emotion, 8, 792–808. doi:10.1037/a0013976
39.
VerhofstatdtL. L.DavisM.IckesW. (2011). Motivation, empathic accuracy, and spousal support: It’s complicated. In SmithJ. L.IckesW.HallJ. A.HodgesS. (Eds.), Managing interpersonal sensitivity: Knowing when—and when not—to understand others (pp. 169–192). New York, NY: Nova Science.
40.
VerhofstatdtL. L.IckesW.BuysseA. (2010). “I know what you need right now”: Empathic accuracy and support provision in marriage. InSullivanK. T.DavilaJ. (Eds.), Support processes in intimate relationships (pp. 71–88). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
