Subject 1: compassion
Strauss, C., Lever Taylor, B., Gu, J., Kuyken, W., Baer, R., Jones, F., & Cavanagh, K.
(2016). What is compassion and how can we measure it? A review of definitions and
measures. Clinical Psychology Review, 47, 15–27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CPR.2016.05.004
1. Why This Paper Is Important
Strauss et al. (2016) start from a fundamental scientific problem: compassion is widely valued across
society, yet poorly defined and inadequately measured.
Compassion is central in healthcare, education, and moral philosophy. It has evolutionary relevance
(Darwin argued that communities with more sympathetic members flourish better) and measurable
clinical consequences: it improves patient satisfaction, communication, stress regulation, and
recovery from psychopathology.
However, despite its importance:
There is no consensus definition.
There is no psychometrically robust measure.
Without a shared definition and reliable measures, we cannot properly compare studies or evaluate
compassion-based interventions. This is the central problem the paper addresses.
2. Aim and Structure of the Paper
The paper has two main goals:
1. To synthesize existing conceptualizations and propose an integrative definition of
compassion.
2. To conduct a systematic review of self- and observer-rated measures of compassion.
The authors draw from Buddhist philosophy, evolutionary psychology, clinical theory, and
organizational research, and evaluate nine existing measures using psychometric quality criteria.
Their conclusion: the field needs a new measure aligned with a coherent, multidimensional
definition.
3. The Challenge: No Consensus Definition
Across the literature compassion is generally described as being moved by suffering and wanting to
help. For example:
Lazarus: “Being moved by another’s suffering and wanting to help.”
Goetz: The feeling that arises when witnessing suffering and motivates helping.
The Dalai Lama: Openness to suffering with a commitment to relieve it.
However, definitions differ in emphasis:
Some stress emotional resonance.
Others emphasize cognitive understanding.
Some include regulatory components such as non-judgment or distress tolerance.
Some focus mainly on action.
1
,This lack of consensus creates fragmentation in both theory and measurement.
4. From Three Facets to Five Elements
Early conceptualizations (Kanov et al., 2004) described compassion as three core facets:
Noticing suffering
Feeling concern
Responding
Gilbert (2010) expanded this by conceptualizing compassion as an evolved motivational system and
adding:
Distress tolerance
Non-judgment
Distress tolerance refers to the ability to remain open to suffering without becoming overwhelmed
by one’s own discomfort. Without this regulatory component, empathy may lead to withdrawal
rather than helping.
Neff (2003), in her work on self-compassion, proposed three components:
Kindness
Mindfulness
Common humanity
Common humanity reflects the idea that suffering is part of the shared human experience. Together,
these theoretical developments led Strauss et al. to propose a more comprehensive model.
5. The Five-Element Definition of Compassion
Based on this synthesis, Strauss et al. propose a five-element definition. Compassion is defined as a
cognitive, affective, and behavioral process consisting of:
1. Recognizing suffering.
2. Understanding the universality of suffering in human experience.
3. Feeling empathy for the person suffering and emotionally connecting with the distress
(emotional resonance).
4. Tolerating uncomfortable feelings that arise in response to suffering (such as distress,
anger, or fear), thereby remaining open and non-judgmental.
5. Motivation to act or acting to alleviate suffering.
This definition integrates emotional, cognitive, and behavioral components and applies to both self-
compassion and compassion for others. Importantly, no previous definition explicitly included all five
elements together.
6. Compassion Versus Empathy
A key conceptual clarification concerns the distinction between empathy and compassion.
Empathy can be divided into cognitive empathy (understanding another’s perspective) and affective
empathy (sharing another’s emotional state). Empathy does not necessarily involve action. One can
empathize with someone’s anger, joy, or fear without any inclination to reduce suffering.
2
,Compassion, by contrast, is specifically a response to suffering. It includes empathy but goes beyond
it. Compassion requires distress tolerance and motivation to alleviate suffering. It is therefore
empathy plus regulatory capacity and action orientation.
This distinction is clinically crucial. Empathy without distress tolerance may lead to empathic distress
and burnout. Compassion includes the regulatory processes that allow sustained helping behavior.
7. Are Self-Compassion and Compassion for Others the Same Construct?
This is an important theoretical debate addressed in the paper.
The paper also addresses whether self-compassion and compassion for others are the same
construct.
From a Buddhist perspective, separating self- and other-compassion is artificial; self-compassion is
considered a prerequisite for compassion toward others.
However, empirical research complicates this view:
Neff and Pommier (2013) found no correlation between self-compassion and compassion
for others in undergraduate samples.
Pommier (2010) reported similar findings.
This raises the question of whether the constructs are distinct or whether measurement limitations
explain weak correlations. The authors conclude that this remains unclear and requires further
investigation.
8. The Systematic Review of Measures
The second half of the paper systematically evaluates nine compassion measures. These include the
Compassionate Love Scale, the Santa Clara Brief Compassion Scale, the Self-Compassion Scale, the
Relational Compassion Scale, the Compassionate Care Assessment Tool, and the Schwartz Center
Compassionate Care Scale.
Each measure was evaluated on criteria including:
Content validity
Factor structure
Internal consistency
Test–retest reliability
Convergent and discriminant validity
Floor and ceiling effects
Interpretability
The maximum possible quality score was 14. The highest score achieved by any measure was 7. No
scale comprehensively captured all five elements of compassion.
The Self-Compassion Scale and the Relational Compassion Scale performed relatively better, but
neither assessed all five elements. Many measures lacked test–retest reliability, had unclear factor
structures, or failed to examine floor and ceiling effects. Discriminant validity was often absent.
3
, The central conclusion is that no existing scale provides a psychometrically robust and
comprehensive measurement of compassion.
9. Why Measurement Matters
Without reliable and valid measures:
We cannot confidently assess compassion levels.
We cannot rigorously evaluate compassion-based interventions.
Scientific progress remains limited.
Therefore, the authors call for:
Development of a new measure aligned with the five-element definition.
Empirical testing of the five-element model.
Strong psychometric evaluation.
10. Final Conclusion
Strauss et al. (2016) make two foundational contributions:
1. They propose an integrated five-element definition of compassion, conceptualizing it as a
multidimensional process involving recognition, common humanity, emotional
resonance, regulation, and action.
2. They demonstrate that existing compassion measures are psychometrically insufficient
and fail to capture the full complexity of the construct.
Compassion is not merely a moral virtue or emotional reaction. It is a multidimensional, regulatory,
and action-oriented process — but current measurement tools do not adequately reflect this
complexity.
4
Strauss, C., Lever Taylor, B., Gu, J., Kuyken, W., Baer, R., Jones, F., & Cavanagh, K.
(2016). What is compassion and how can we measure it? A review of definitions and
measures. Clinical Psychology Review, 47, 15–27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CPR.2016.05.004
1. Why This Paper Is Important
Strauss et al. (2016) start from a fundamental scientific problem: compassion is widely valued across
society, yet poorly defined and inadequately measured.
Compassion is central in healthcare, education, and moral philosophy. It has evolutionary relevance
(Darwin argued that communities with more sympathetic members flourish better) and measurable
clinical consequences: it improves patient satisfaction, communication, stress regulation, and
recovery from psychopathology.
However, despite its importance:
There is no consensus definition.
There is no psychometrically robust measure.
Without a shared definition and reliable measures, we cannot properly compare studies or evaluate
compassion-based interventions. This is the central problem the paper addresses.
2. Aim and Structure of the Paper
The paper has two main goals:
1. To synthesize existing conceptualizations and propose an integrative definition of
compassion.
2. To conduct a systematic review of self- and observer-rated measures of compassion.
The authors draw from Buddhist philosophy, evolutionary psychology, clinical theory, and
organizational research, and evaluate nine existing measures using psychometric quality criteria.
Their conclusion: the field needs a new measure aligned with a coherent, multidimensional
definition.
3. The Challenge: No Consensus Definition
Across the literature compassion is generally described as being moved by suffering and wanting to
help. For example:
Lazarus: “Being moved by another’s suffering and wanting to help.”
Goetz: The feeling that arises when witnessing suffering and motivates helping.
The Dalai Lama: Openness to suffering with a commitment to relieve it.
However, definitions differ in emphasis:
Some stress emotional resonance.
Others emphasize cognitive understanding.
Some include regulatory components such as non-judgment or distress tolerance.
Some focus mainly on action.
1
,This lack of consensus creates fragmentation in both theory and measurement.
4. From Three Facets to Five Elements
Early conceptualizations (Kanov et al., 2004) described compassion as three core facets:
Noticing suffering
Feeling concern
Responding
Gilbert (2010) expanded this by conceptualizing compassion as an evolved motivational system and
adding:
Distress tolerance
Non-judgment
Distress tolerance refers to the ability to remain open to suffering without becoming overwhelmed
by one’s own discomfort. Without this regulatory component, empathy may lead to withdrawal
rather than helping.
Neff (2003), in her work on self-compassion, proposed three components:
Kindness
Mindfulness
Common humanity
Common humanity reflects the idea that suffering is part of the shared human experience. Together,
these theoretical developments led Strauss et al. to propose a more comprehensive model.
5. The Five-Element Definition of Compassion
Based on this synthesis, Strauss et al. propose a five-element definition. Compassion is defined as a
cognitive, affective, and behavioral process consisting of:
1. Recognizing suffering.
2. Understanding the universality of suffering in human experience.
3. Feeling empathy for the person suffering and emotionally connecting with the distress
(emotional resonance).
4. Tolerating uncomfortable feelings that arise in response to suffering (such as distress,
anger, or fear), thereby remaining open and non-judgmental.
5. Motivation to act or acting to alleviate suffering.
This definition integrates emotional, cognitive, and behavioral components and applies to both self-
compassion and compassion for others. Importantly, no previous definition explicitly included all five
elements together.
6. Compassion Versus Empathy
A key conceptual clarification concerns the distinction between empathy and compassion.
Empathy can be divided into cognitive empathy (understanding another’s perspective) and affective
empathy (sharing another’s emotional state). Empathy does not necessarily involve action. One can
empathize with someone’s anger, joy, or fear without any inclination to reduce suffering.
2
,Compassion, by contrast, is specifically a response to suffering. It includes empathy but goes beyond
it. Compassion requires distress tolerance and motivation to alleviate suffering. It is therefore
empathy plus regulatory capacity and action orientation.
This distinction is clinically crucial. Empathy without distress tolerance may lead to empathic distress
and burnout. Compassion includes the regulatory processes that allow sustained helping behavior.
7. Are Self-Compassion and Compassion for Others the Same Construct?
This is an important theoretical debate addressed in the paper.
The paper also addresses whether self-compassion and compassion for others are the same
construct.
From a Buddhist perspective, separating self- and other-compassion is artificial; self-compassion is
considered a prerequisite for compassion toward others.
However, empirical research complicates this view:
Neff and Pommier (2013) found no correlation between self-compassion and compassion
for others in undergraduate samples.
Pommier (2010) reported similar findings.
This raises the question of whether the constructs are distinct or whether measurement limitations
explain weak correlations. The authors conclude that this remains unclear and requires further
investigation.
8. The Systematic Review of Measures
The second half of the paper systematically evaluates nine compassion measures. These include the
Compassionate Love Scale, the Santa Clara Brief Compassion Scale, the Self-Compassion Scale, the
Relational Compassion Scale, the Compassionate Care Assessment Tool, and the Schwartz Center
Compassionate Care Scale.
Each measure was evaluated on criteria including:
Content validity
Factor structure
Internal consistency
Test–retest reliability
Convergent and discriminant validity
Floor and ceiling effects
Interpretability
The maximum possible quality score was 14. The highest score achieved by any measure was 7. No
scale comprehensively captured all five elements of compassion.
The Self-Compassion Scale and the Relational Compassion Scale performed relatively better, but
neither assessed all five elements. Many measures lacked test–retest reliability, had unclear factor
structures, or failed to examine floor and ceiling effects. Discriminant validity was often absent.
3
, The central conclusion is that no existing scale provides a psychometrically robust and
comprehensive measurement of compassion.
9. Why Measurement Matters
Without reliable and valid measures:
We cannot confidently assess compassion levels.
We cannot rigorously evaluate compassion-based interventions.
Scientific progress remains limited.
Therefore, the authors call for:
Development of a new measure aligned with the five-element definition.
Empirical testing of the five-element model.
Strong psychometric evaluation.
10. Final Conclusion
Strauss et al. (2016) make two foundational contributions:
1. They propose an integrated five-element definition of compassion, conceptualizing it as a
multidimensional process involving recognition, common humanity, emotional
resonance, regulation, and action.
2. They demonstrate that existing compassion measures are psychometrically insufficient
and fail to capture the full complexity of the construct.
Compassion is not merely a moral virtue or emotional reaction. It is a multidimensional, regulatory,
and action-oriented process — but current measurement tools do not adequately reflect this
complexity.
4
