1. Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument
● Based on cooperation (attempting
to satisfy the other person's concerns)
and assertiveness (attempting
to satisfy one’s own concerns)
(Thomas & Kilmann, 1974).
Empathy:
● Empathy is the capability to
comprehend and share in
another’s emotional state
(Wied & Branje & Meeus, 2006).
● High levels of empathy positively affect
prosocial behaviors
● May influence relationship behaviors like
conflict management (Wied & Branje & Meeus,
2006)
Relationships:
● Women- more communal orientation (meeting
others needs),
● Men - agentic (meeting needs of self) (Bakan,
1966; Keener & Strough & Didonato, 2012).
● Positive problem solving is related to higher
levels of empathy in romantic relationships
(Perrone-McGovern, 2013).
Empathy Manipulation in Romantic and Platonic Relationships on Conflict Resolution Styles
Gabrielle Azmy, Elena Dikova, Josiah D’Souza , Catherine Gao
The Ohio State University, Department of Psychology
Hypothesis: Within a
high empathy
condition, people in
romantic relationships
have more positive
AND less negative
conflict resolution
styles than those in
platonic relationships.
Design:, 2 IVs and 1 DV, each with 2 levels.
● IVs: Empathy (high/low) & Relationship Type (romantic/platonic).
● DV: Conflict Resolution Style: Positive (compromising and collaborating)
& Negative (accommodating, avoiding, competing)
Participants: 97 participants, 67 females, 29 males, and 1 “Other”.
Procedure:
● Empathy: Participants randomly assigned to a high/low empathy
condition and given vignettes describing social situations manipulate
their empathy.
● Relationship: Randomly assigned into the romantic/platonic relationship
condition and given vignettes describing an argument with either a
friend/a significant other.
● Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Resolution Mode Instrument
Introduction
Summary
● Empathy levels, relationship conditions, and the
interaction of the two do not influence people’s
conflict resolution styles significantly
● High empathy does not relate to positive conflict
resolution styles
Limitations
● Manipulation of empathy
○ Manipulation did not work
○ Participants not discriminated based on empathy
check score
● Many more female participants than male
○ Gender difference exists
● Less participants than expected
Males use more negative resolutions styles than
females
● Marginally significant results, F(1,93) = 0.72, p = .09
● Data is consistent with previous research suggesting
females use more positive problem solving
techniques due to inherently high empathy (Wied et
al., 2006)
● Woman’s role in a relationship (more caring, nursing)
● Hormones play a role?
● Investment in a relationship? (women devote more in
a relationship)
Future study can investigate on
● Gender difference on resolution styles
● Impact of empathy on resolution styles in family
relationships
References
DiscussionMethod
Results
Empathy Manipulation Check
● A t-test of mean empathy check scores on empathy condition shows
no significant effect, t(1, 93) = 0.06, p = .81. This suggests that the
empathy manipulation was ineffective.
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument. Mountain View, CA: Xicom, a subsidiary of CPP, Inc.
Davis, J. L., & Rusbult, C. E. (January 01, 2001). Attitude alignment in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1, 65-84. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.81.65
Batson, C. D., Dyck, J. L., Brandt, J. R., Batson, J. G., Powell, A. L., McMaster, M. R., & Griffitt, C. (1994). Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives
to the empathy-altruism hypothesis. In B. Puka (Ed.) , Reaching out: Caring, altruism, and prosocial behavior (pp. 76-101). New York, NY, US:
Garland Publishing.
Bouchard, S. P. (2013). Empathy toward virtual humans depicting a known or unknown person expressing pain. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social
Networking, 16(1), 61-71. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.1571
Stotland, E. (1969). Exploratory investigations in empathy. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 271-313.
Balconi, M., Bortolotti, A., & Crivelli, D. (2013). Self-report measures, facial feedback, and personality differences (BEES) in cooperative vs. noncooperative
situations: Contribution of the mimic system to the sense of empathy. International Journal Of Psychology, 48(4), 631-640.
Perrone-McGovern, K. Ó. (2014). Effects of Empathy and Conflict Resolution Strategies on Psychophysiological Arousal and Satisfaction in Romantic
Relationships. Applied Psychophysiology & Biofeedback, 39(1), 19-25. doi:10.1007/s10484-013-9237-2
Schoonover, K. B. (2014). Are you really just friends? Predicting the audience challenge in cross-sex friendships. Personal Relationships, 21(3), 387-403.
doi:10.1111/pere.12040
O’Meara, J. D. (1989). Cross-sex friendship: Four basic challenges of an ignored relationship. Sex Roles, (21), 525–543. doi: 10.1007/BF00289102
Palagi, E., Dall'Olio, S., Demuru, E., & Stanyon, R. (2014). Exploring the evolutionary foundations of empathy: Consolation in monkeys. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 35(4), 341-349. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.04.002
Wied, M., Branje, S., & Meeus, W. (2006). Empathy and conflict resolution in friendship relations among adolescents. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 48-55.
Positive Resolution Styles
● Main effect relationship: F(1, 93) = 0.81, p = .37.
● Main effect empathy: F(1, 93) = 1.42, p = .24.
● Main effect interaction: F(1, 93) = 1.37, p = .25.
Negative Resolution Styles
● Main effect relationship: F(1, 93) = 0.19, p = .67.
● Main effect empathy: F(1, 93) = 0.93, p = .34.
● Main effect interaction: F(1, 93) = 0.42, p = .52.
Participants did not significantly differ
across conditions in positive
resolution styles, compromise and
collaboration.
There was no significant difference
between participants in each
condition in negative resolution styles
accommodating, avoiding,
competing.