Compassion is often misunderstood and easily confused with related but distinct constructs (Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, & O’Connor, 1987). While it is important to define compassion, it is equally important to define what it is not. Constructs including empathy, sympathy, pity, and altruism will be highlighted in order to emphasize how they differ from compassion.
Empathy
Compassion is often confused with empathy and sympathy, most likely because each of these constructs is thought to be associated with helping. Unlike compassion, empathy does not incorporate the readiness to act in order to relieve the suffering of others, rather it is the ability to understand another’s feelings and become one with that person’s distress.
De Waal (2008) described empathy as the capacity to be affected by and share the emotional state of another and identify with the other, adopting his or her perspective.
Sympathy
Similarly, sympathy is the feeling of care and concern for someone which is often accompanied by a wish to see them happier. Sympathy is the experience of feeling sorrow for someone else’s misfortune but not necessarily a shared perspective or shared emotions.
With compassion, there is recognition of the other person’s emotional state and a desire to act in order to help.
Pity
Pity is commonly confused with compassion, however, the two concepts are very different – feeling pity for another is essentially an acknowledgment of their plight.
Pity refers more to feeling concern for someone thought to be inferior or weaker than oneself and is by definition, rooted in a hierarchical sense of superiority over someone else (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002).
Compassion, on the other hand, does not consider the object of suffering to be weak or inferior in any way. Instead, it encourages a broader vision through common experiences (Ibbett, 2008).
Altruism
Altruism is acting out of concern for another person’s wellbeing, while compassion encapsulates an openness to experiencing suffering and responding with genuine concern, and without judgment (Jinpa, 2010). It is also worth noting that compassion can exist in the absence of altruistic behavior.
Love
According to Jazaieri (2018), compassion is functionally distinct from the two most common forms of love; romantic love and the love of a parent for a child.
The fundamental difference between the two is that compassion likely involves a complex combination of multiple positive and negative emotions. Where love is generally associated with positive affect and experiences, compassion is about being open to the experience of suffering.
The Three Orientations of Compassion

Psychological investigations of compassion have primarily focused on three specific orientations of compassion, namely: having compassion for others, receiving compassion from others, and self-compassion.
Here we will look at the differences between these orientations.
Receiving Compassion
Jazaieri et al. (2014) proposed that feeling like one does not deserve kindness from others can create fear of receiving compassion. For some, being the recipient of compassion can cause avoidance, and negative emotions such as grief or loneliness (Gilbert, McEwan, Matos, & Rivis, 2011).
Improving this orientation of compassion may enhance relationships and social connectedness. It can teach individuals to be more comfortable being the object of another person’s attention (Jazaieri et al., 2014).
Self-Compassion
Defined by Neff (2007) as being open to and moved by one’s own suffering, self-compassion is associated with many positive qualities. Neff (2007) suggested self-compassion positively affects coping skills, life satisfaction, emotional intelligence, social connectedness, mastery of goals, personal initiative, curiosity, wisdom, happiness, optimism, and positive affect.
A key component of self-compassion is the absence of self-criticism, which is known to be an early predictor of anxiety and depression (Blatt, 1995).
Self-compassionate people tend to recognize that imperfection and failure are often unavoidable, and so are more likely to be kind to themselves when confronted with negative experiences.
Research into self-compassion within healthcare professions has shown that high self-judgment is negatively correlated with compassion for others, self-kindness, and wellbeing. These results indicate that we become less compassionate to ourselves and others if we judge ourselves too harshly (Beaumont, Durkin, Martin, & Carson, 2016).
Compassion for Others
Compassion for others is evident across most cultures and spiritual traditions and is thought by some to be easier and more palatable than compassion for oneself (Jazaieri et al., 2014).
However, Gilbert and colleagues (2011) suggested that compassion for others is not always expressed and can actually be suppressed or inhibited.
It was initially thought that self-compassion and compassion for others may be related given they have the same theoretical structure and base definition. However, as they have been mostly studied separately, little is known about their relationship and to what extent they differ or resemble each other. Research has, however, indicated that the two may be different because:
- Compassion is directed towards others as opposed to the self.
- Individuals are often more compassionate to others than they are themselves (Neff, 2003).
Can Compassion Be Measured?
Compassion can be measured as a subscale of a larger construct; however, over years of research items from other scales have been hand-picked and subsequently taken as a measure of compassion.
In order to explore the relationship between compassion, self-compassion and other psychological processes, several self-report instruments and scales by which compassion can be measured have been developed.
There are currently eight scales by which compassion can be measured, each with varying validity and focusing on different aspects of compassion (Strauss et al., 2016).
Compassionate love scale (Sprecher & Fehr, 2005) – The CLS consists of 21 self-report items, rated on a Likert scale from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true). The CLS is intended for the general population and consists of two forms: one relating to close family and friends, and one focusing on strangers and humanity as a whole.
Santa Clara brief compassion scale (Hwang, Plante, & Lackey, 2008) – The SCBC is a short-form version of the compassionate love scale consisting of five items from the original. Unlike the CLS, this scale examines compassion in relation to strangers rather than those closest to us.
The compassion scale (Martins, Nicholas, Shaheen, Jones, & Norris, 2013) – The aim of this scale is to provide a measure of compassion across domains that could be strengthened through guided training.
Self-compassion scale (Neff, 2003) – the SCS is a 26-item scale with a 5-point response scale from “almost never” to “almost always” and does not include items specifically relating to being attentive to how one is feeling.
Self-compassion scale: short form (Raes, Pommier, Neff, & Van Gucht, 2011) – a 12-item version of the SCS consisting of two items from each of the original six subscales. The short-form SCS has a near-perfect correlation with the long scale when examining overall self-compassion scores, although is less reliable when considering subscale scores.
The compassion scale (Pommier, 2010) – a 24-item self-report scale targeted at the general population and based on the theory compassion consists of kindness, mindfulness, and common humanity.
Relational compassion scale (Hacker, 2008) – a 16 item scale rated on a four-point scale from ‘do not agree’ to ‘agree strongly’. The scale consists of four subscales which measure respondents’ compassion for others, for themselves, their beliefs about how compassionate people are to one another, and their beliefs about how compassionate other people are towards them.
Compassionate care assessment tool (Burnell & Agan, 2013) – a 28-item scale developed to measure levels of compassion demonstrated by nurses providing care in hospital settings. In contrast to the other scales, this scale is completed by patients in relation to their caregivers.
The Schwartz center compassionate care scale (Lown, Muncer, & Chadwick, 2015) – a 12-item scale developed to measure patients’ ratings of compassionate inpatient care received from physicians’ during hospitalization. Patients complete the measure by using a ten-point scale from 1 (not at all successful) to 10 (very successful).
The Compassion Scale
Also known as the self-compassion scale, the Compassion Scale was developed by Neff (2003) and consists of 26 statements – 13 positive and 13 negative – that measure typical actions towards the self during arduous times. Each response is scored on a five-point Likert scale (1 = almost never to 5 = almost always). The scale consists of 6 subscales, namely: self-kindness, self-judgment, mindfulness, common humanity, isolation, and over-identification.
The compassion scale is compiled of statements such as:
- ‘I’m disapproving and judgmental about my own flaws and inadequacies.’
- ‘I am kind to myself when I am experiencing suffering.’
- ‘I try to be loving towards myself when I feel emotional pain.’
Each positive and negative statement is related to four elements of self-compassion: understanding the universality of suffering, emotional resonance, the ability to tolerate distressing feelings, and feeling motivated to act or acting to help ameliorate one’s suffering (Strauss et al., 2016).
More recently, a shortened 12-item self-compassion scale was developed by Raes et al. (2011) which takes six positive and negative statements from the self-compassion scale and is rated in the same way.
You can access the self-compassion scale here and the short-form version here.
The Compassion for Others Scale
Compassion is an increasingly prominent area of examination within Western psychology. Moreover, psychologists are becoming increasingly interested in the benefits of Buddhist conceptualizations of mindfulness and compassion. Thus, a scale to measure the concept was required in order to empirically investigate theoretical assumptions about the construct of compassion.
Multiple scales and measures have been specifically developed to assess compassion for others. Here we will look at Pommier’s compassion scale and the more recent compassion scale by Martins et al. (2013).
Based on the self-compassion scale, the compassion scale (Pommier, 2010) was developed in order to translate the theoretical structure of self-compassion toward compassion for others. The fundamental goal of the Compassion Scale was to measure compassion as defined by Neff (2003): “being touched by the suffering of others, opening one’s awareness to others’ pain and not avoiding or disconnecting from it, so that feelings of kindness towards others and the desire to alleviate their suffering emerge” (p. 86-87).
When completing the compassion scale, participants are asked to read 24 statements and rate them on a five-point response scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always).
Statements are often written in a colloquial language in place of grammatically correct language to reflect how people naturally speak to one another and to avoid confusing or overly sophisticated language.
The scale includes statements such as:
- ‘Sometimes when people talk about their problems, I feel like I don’t care.’
- ‘I don’t think too much about the concerns of others.’
- ‘When others feel sadness, I try to comfort them.’
- ‘My heart goes out to people who are unhappy.’
The development of the CS allows compassion to be subjected to scientific analysis, and can be utilized to assess:
- The outcomes related to Buddhist practices such as meditation.
- The relationship between compassion and physical and psychological health.
- Compassion’s positive effects on negative psychological states.
- Fields of counseling and therapy.
- Compassionate care requirements within medical professions and educational settings that would benefit from a compassionate stance.
Martins et al.’s (2013) compassion scale is a 10 item self-report scale developed to measure five domains of compassion, namely: generosity, hospitality, objectivity, sensitivity, and tolerance across all social networks and relationships using a 7-point response scale.
The aim of the scale was to provide a measure of compassion across domains that could be enhanced through training, as the authors argued that other scales did not lend themselves well to measuring compassion in a way that can be targeted for education.
This scale focuses on the practical aspects of compassion such as giving financial help to others, using your free time to help others and doing things for others at a cost or risk to yourself or your family and friends. As such, items related to recognizing suffering, emotional resonance, and tolerating uncomfortable feelings are not included in this version of the compassion scale (Strauss et al., 2016).
What our readers think
This is a magnificent article! As a lifelong teacher I have had similar realizations. Thank you for summarizing such important concepts in one clear and well-researched article.
Damian Nash
Kauai High School