See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263010097

Compassionate love in romantic relationships: A review and some new

findings

Article  in  Journal of Social and Personal Relationships · July 2014

DOI: 10.1177/0265407514533768

CITATIONS READS

24 2,863

3 authors, including:

Beverley Fehr Cheryl Harasymchuk

The University of Winnipeg Carleton University
61 PUBLICATIONS   5,230 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   138 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Friendship View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Cheryl Harasymchuk on 30 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JSPR
Article

Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships
Compassionate love in 2014, Vol. 31(5) 575–600
ª The Author(s) 2014
romantic relationships: Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

A review and some DOI: 10.1177/0265407514533768

spr.sagepub.com

new findings

Beverley Fehr1, Cheryl Harasymchuk2,

and Susan Sprecher3

Abstract
Compassionate love has been identified as one of the major types of love experienced in
relationships (Berscheid, 2010), but one that has been overshadowed by the study of
romantic love. In this article, we review research on compassionate love, a relative
newcomer to the close relationships field, and present findings that more fully flesh-out
the nature of the experience of this kind of love. We begin by discussing conceptions and
measurement of compassionate love. We then present a study on the relation between
compassionate love and love styles, with a focus on distinguishing between compassio-
nate love and the agape (altruistic) love style. The literature on individual differences in
compassionate love is discussed next. The spotlight then shifts to research on the link
between compassionate love and prosocial relationship behaviors, relationship quality,
and relationship stability. Differences between compassionate love given versus received
also are highlighted. We end with a discussion of what compassionate love ‘‘looks like’’ in
the context of a romantic relationship and recommend directions for future research.

Keywords
Agape love, altruistic love, compassionate love, love

1
University of Winnipeg, Canada
2
Carleton University, Canada
3
Illinois State University, USA

Corresponding author:
Beverley Fehr, University of Winnipeg, 515 Portage Ave., Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9, Canada.
Email: bfehr@uwinnipeg.ca
576 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(5)

Love has been identified by relationship scientists from multiple disciplines as a major
force in the development of romantic relationships (Surra, Gray, Boettcher, Cottle, &
West, 2006). The delineation of different categories or types of love, and how these types
predict satisfaction and stability of relationships, has been a focus of theory and research
over the past few decades (for reviews, see Aron, Fisher, & Strong, 2006; Berscheid,
2010; Fehr, 2013, in press; Felmlee & Sprecher, 2006). Romantic/passionate love has
received the lion’s share of the research attention, sometimes coupled with companio-
nate love (Hatfield & Rapson, 1993; Sprecher & Regan, 1998). In a recent treatise on
love, Berscheid (2010) argued that the focus on romantic love has obscured the fact that
people experience a variety of other kinds of love in relationships, including compas-
sionate love. She articulated a quadrumvirate model in which compassionate love is one
of four fundamental kinds of love that romantic partners can experience for one another
(along with romantic/passionate love, companionate love, and attachment love). Further,
she claimed that compassionate love plays an important role in predicting relationship
satisfaction and stability.
Despite Berscheid’s (2010) assertion that compassionate love can be experienced for
a romantic partner, and, in fact, has important relationship implications, so far research
on this kind of love has focused primarily on nonromantic contexts (e.g., family and
friends, strangers, and even all of humanity; see Fehr, Sprecher, & Underwood, 2009, for
a review). Fortunately, in the last few years, close relationship scholars have begun to
turn their attention to compassionate love in romantic (dating and marital) relationships.
The purpose of this article is to review what is known so far and, where relevant, to
present some new findings from a study that we conducted in order to sketch a portrait of
what compassionate love ‘‘looks like’’ in the context of a romantic relationship. With
such a sketch in place, future research can add detail, texture, and color. The final
masterpiece may look quite different from the early sketches, but, as in the world of art, it
is unlikely that a masterpiece will be created without a process of sketching, evaluating,
erasing, and sketching some more.
We begin by addressing the basic question: What is compassionate love? Both
experts’ and lay people’s conceptions are discussed. Next, we turn to the issue of
measurement and describe the scales that are used to assess compassionate love. We
then address the issue of whether compassionate love can be differentiated from the
agape love style and present findings from a study that we conducted on the relation
between love styles and compassionate love. Next, we raise the question: Who is most
likely to experience compassionate love in a romantic relationship? We answer this
question by reviewing research on individual differences in the propensity to expe-
rience compassionate love, including gender and personality differences. The spotlight
then shifts to the dynamics of relationships in which partners love one another
compassionately. In this part of the article, we review research on the link between
compassionate love and prosocial relationship behaviors. Then we focus on the
‘‘outcomes’’ of compassionate love and present research on the relation between
compassionate love and various indices of relationship quality and relationship sta-
bility. This is followed by a section on whether it is better to give or receive com-
passionate love in a romantic relationship. (For each of these topics, we review
existing literature and weave in the findings from the study that we conducted where
Fehr et al. 577

applicable.) We end with some general conclusions about the current state of the
literature on compassionate love and suggest directions for future research.

What is compassionate love?

The concept of compassionate love has been defined from a number of different per-
spectives. Some theorists have constructed general definitions that apply across targets
or contexts. Others have crafted definitions that are specific to a romantic relationship.
Lay conceptions of compassionate love also have been examined.

Experts’ definitions of compassionate love

Scholars have generated a number of theories and definitions of compassionate love. We
will focus on three prominent conceptualizations, namely those articulated by Under-
wood, Berscheid, and Neff and Karney. We note that psychological theories of human
behavior (e.g., behavioral systems and evolutionary theory) also have been applied to
compassionate love (e.g., Mikulincer, Shaver, Bar-On, & Sahdra, in press; see Fehr &
Sprecher, 2013, for a review).

Underwood’s model. Underwood (2002, 2009) spearheaded scientific inquiry on com-

passionate love. She offered the following working definition of this concept: ‘‘attitudes
and actions related to giving of self for the good of the other’’ (Underwood, 2009, p. 4).
This definition was intended to apply to a variety of targets, including known and
unknown others. She elaborated on this definition by delineating the characteristics or
features of this kind of love. More specifically, she maintained that the following
characteristics must be present (to varying degrees) in order for an experience to qualify
as compassionate love: free choice (the giver extends this kind of love out of his or her
own volition), an accurate understanding of the other’s needs and feelings, valuing the
other at a fundamental level, openness and receptivity to the other, and a ‘‘response of the
heart’’ (emotional engagement with the other). In her view, this constellation of features
distinguishes compassionate love from related constructs such as romantic love,
empathy, sympathy, and compassion. For example, she argues that romantic love is often
hormonally driven and can be motivated by fulfillment of one’s own needs and desires.
Compassionate love differs from sympathy and empathy in that compassionate love is
not just an emotional response but includes taking actions that alleviate the other’s
suffering. Importantly, in Underwood’s view, compassionate love also includes actions
that promote the flourishing of the other, not just reducing distress. Similarly, the con-
cept of compassion is more narrowly focused on a response to another’s suffering—
compassion does not include taking actions to promote the growth of another person nor
does it necessarily require the level of engagement with the other that compassionate
love entails.
Having articulated what compassionate love is, Underwood (2002, 2009) developed a
model that specifies the antecedents, motivational factors, and consequences of com-
passionate love. Antecedents include contextual variables (cultural, social, and situa-
tional) and individual-level (e.g., biological, developmental, and personality) variables.
578 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(5)

For example, she suggests that an early secure and nurturing environment is more likely
to lead to compassionate love and that the religious socialization of an individual will
affect the likelihood of being compassionate. The next component of the model is more
proximal to the expression of compassionate love, namely motive and discernment. For
an individual to express compassionate love (the final outcome in the model), his or her
motives must be centered on the good of the other. Motivations that are inappropriate or
focused on self-gain will impede the expression of compassionate love.
Underwood’s conceptualization of compassionate love inspired other social scientists
to formulate definitions and models of this kind of love (see Shacham-Dupont, 2003, for
a review). For example, Sprecher and Fehr (2005) offered the following definition:

Compassionate love is an attitude toward the other(s), either close others or strangers or all
of humanity; containing feelings, cognitions, and behaviors that are focused on caring, con-
cern, tenderness, and an orientation toward supporting, helping, and understanding the oth-
er(s), particularly when the other(s) is (are) perceived to be suffering or in need. (p. 630)

Berscheid’s model. Turning to the context of a romantic relationship, Berscheid (2006,

2010) defined compassionate love as ‘‘concern for another’s welfare and taking actions
to promote it, regardless of whether those actions are perceived to result in future
benefits to the self’’ (Berscheid, 2006, p. 176). (As mentioned earlier, she developed a
model of love in which compassionate love is identified as one of four fundamental
kinds (along with romantic/passionate love, companionate love, and attachment love)).
Berscheid distinguishes between the historical causes (i.e., evolutionary factors) and
more proximal antecedents of compassionate love. She postulates that the principal
immediate cause of compassionate love is the perception that the other is in distress.
The tendency to respond to others’ distress with care and concern (i.e., the caregiving
system) is part of the evolutionary history of humankind, given that infants can only
survive when they receive care and protection from caregivers. Thus, according to this
model, compassionate love has its basis in human evolution. (This assumption is
shared in other models of compassionate love, including the behavioral systems
approach articulated by Mikulincer, Shaver, and colleagues, e.g., Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007; Mikulincer, Shaver, & Gillath, 2009; see Mikulincer et al., in press, as well as
evolutionary models of compassion, e.g., Goetz, Keltner, & Simon-Thomas, 2010;
Keltner, 2009.) The behavior that is enacted depends on an individual’s appraisal of
the kind of response that would be most effective in alleviating the other’s distress.
In terms of temporal course, Berscheid suggests that this kind of love may develop
early on in a relationship but is only put to the test when support and sacrifice are
required over an extended period of time.
The other kinds of love specified in Berscheid’s model differ from compassionate
love in terms of their antecedents or causes, behavioral responses, and temporal course.
For example, romantic love is triggered by the perception of desirable qualities in the
other (e.g., physical attractiveness), sexual desire, and being liked by the other. The
antecedents of companionate love are proximity, familiarity, and perceptions of simi-
larity. Attachment love is defined as a strong affectional bond with an attachment figure
(which Berscheid regards as different from one’s characteristic attachment style). The
Fehr et al. 579

impetus for this kind of love is a threatening situation. The behaviors that are associated
with romantic love are acts that encourage a person to seek out sexual relations with
another. Shared, enjoyable activities are among the behaviors associated with compa-
nionate love. Proximity-seeking behaviors are the hallmark of attachment love. Finally,
in terms of temporal course, Berscheid maintains that romantic love declines over time.
She suggests that companionate love may develop early in a relationship but fluctuates
with changes in the partners and life circumstances. Attachment love is seen as taking a
‘‘slow and steady’’ developmental course.

Neff and Karney’s model. A rather different conceptualization of compassionate love is

offered by Neff and Karney (2005, 2009) who have conducted a program of research on
the trajectory of marital relationships. They define compassionate love as a positive
global evaluation of a partner along with an accurate understanding of his or her specific
strengths and weaknesses. It is the acceptance of the other, coupled with an awareness of
his or her shortcomings, that is seen as distinguishing compassionate love from other
kinds of love for one’s partner.

Can experts’ models of compassionate love be integrated?. At this early stage, it is difficult to
fully integrate these different conceptions and models of compassionate love. However,
as a starting point, we highlight some of the differences between them. One major
difference is in the breadth of the model. Underwood’s conceptualization of compas-
sionate love is the most extensive in that she identifies and elaborates on a number of
defining characteristics of compassionate love, as discussed earlier. She also articulates a
model in which she identifies a wide range of distal (e.g., cultural, social, and personal)
factors that contribute to compassionate love. She also includes more proximal factors
such as motivation and discernment and identifies barriers to the full expression of
compassionate love. Berscheid also specifies distal (i.e., evolutionary) and proximal
(i.e., perception that other is in distress) causes of compassionate love, although she
focuses on a narrower range of causes than does Underwood. Neff and Karney’s model
does not address the causal origins of compassionate love. Both Underwood and
Berscheid delineate behaviors associated with compassionate love (e.g., social support
and sacrifice), although in Berscheid’s model, the behaviors are limited to those that
alleviate distress (Underwood’s model also includes the promotion of flourishing). In
Neff and Karney’s program of research, behaviors such as social support are outcome
variables that are predicted by compassionate love.
The models also differ in terms of the range of targets. Underwood’s model is
intended to apply to compassionate love as experienced toward close others and nonclose
others. (Similarly, Sprecher and Fehr’s, 2005, definition applies to close others, a spe-
cific close other, strangers, and even all of humanity.) Berscheid and Neff and Karney
focus on compassionate love as experienced toward a romantic partner.
As touched on earlier, these models also differ in terms of whether compassionate
love is defined as a response to another’s suffering or distress or whether the definition
also includes actions that are taken to promote the flourishing and well-being of the
other. Underwood emphasizes both. Berscheid (and many other scholars; see Shacham-
Dupont, 2003) regards compassionate love as a response to distress. (Neff and Karney’s
580 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(5)

conceptualization of acceptance of one’s partner while recognizing his or her shortcom-

ings is not particularly germane to the issue of alleviation of distress or promotion of
well-being.)
Another difference between these models lies in their treatment of other kinds of
love. Underwood specifies a few key differences between compassionate love and
romantic love. In Berscheid’s model, compassionate love is regarded as one of four
fundamental kinds of love. Her conceptualization focuses extensively on how this kind
of love differs from the other basic kinds in terms of antecedents, behaviors, temporal
course, and outcomes. In fact, a unique feature of Berscheid’s model is that she spe-
cifies the temporal course of compassionate love. The other models do not specifically
address this issue.
In conclusion, extant models of compassionate love differ in terms of their scope,
the specified target(s), and so on. Compassionate love is also defined in different ways.
Despite this diversity, a common thread that runs through these conceptualizations is
that compassionate love involves extending beneficence to another. As discussed next,
this is also a theme that emerges in lay conceptions of compassionate love.

Lay conceptions of compassionate love

Fehr and Sprecher (2004, 2009a) conducted a series of studies to uncover conceptions
of compassionate love held by ordinary people. In their first study, participants were
asked to list the features or characteristics of compassionate love. Sixty-two features
were listed by more than one person, suggesting that laypeople have a rich and multi-
faceted understanding of the meaning of this concept. The responses included feelings
and emotions (e.g., ‘‘feel sorry for the person’’), cognitions (e.g., ‘‘caring’’, ‘‘worry-
ing’’), motivation (e.g., ‘‘want to spend time with other’’), and behaviors (e.g., ‘‘sup-
port’’, ‘‘comforting’’). In their second study, a new sample of participants rated
these features in terms of prototypicality (i.e., how representative each feature was
of the construct). The features that received the highest ratings were ‘‘trust,’’ ‘‘hon-
esty,’’ ‘‘caring,’’ ‘‘understanding,’’ and ‘‘support.’’ These are features that receive
the highest prototypicality ratings for the concept of love in general (Fehr, 1988).
The lowest prototypicality ratings were assigned to features that are prominent in
scholars’ definitions, such as ‘‘do anything for the other,’’ ‘‘put other ahead of
self,’’ and ‘‘make sacrifices for the other.’’ This prototype structure was confirmed
in additional studies (e.g., memory was biased in the direction of favoring prototy-
pical features; reaction times were faster to verify prototypical, than nonprototypi-
cal, features).
To conclude, as discussed earlier, the idea that compassionate love involves giving of
oneself for the good of another is a common thread in most experts’ conceptions of
compassionate love. This theme also is present in lay conceptions of compassionate love,
although, interestingly, the features of love in general are regarded as most central to
the construct. Thus, ordinary people emphasize the ‘‘love’’ in compassionate love. The
features that depict giving of oneself for another (e.g., sacrifice) are seen as part of the
concept but as more peripheral.
Fehr et al. 581

Measurement of compassionate love

In early research on compassionate love, Underwood (2002) assessed the construct
with 2 items: ‘‘I feel a selfless caring for others’’ and ‘‘I accept others even when
they do things I think are wrong.’’ (These items were taken from Underwood and
Teresi’s (2002) Daily Spiritual Experience Scale.) Subsequently, Sprecher and Fehr
(2005) created a multiple-item scale to measure compassionate love for a variety of
targets—close others in general (family and friends), a specific close other (e.g.,
romantic partner), and strangers or all of humanity. In constructing the Compassio-
nate Love Scale (CLS), Sprecher and Fehr adapted a few items from existing mea-
sures, including Underwood’s compassionate love items, the agape love style scale
(Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986), and standard love scales (e.g., Rubin’s, 1970, Love
Scale). Selection and construction of items also were informed by their analysis
of lay conceptions of compassionate love (Fehr & Sprecher, 2004, 2009a). The final
21-item scale contains items such as ‘‘I often have tender feelings toward ___ when
he or she seems to be in need’’ and ‘‘When I hear about ___ going through a dif-
ficult time, I feel a great deal of compassion for him or her.’’
In the close others version of the scale, the items are worded in terms of close
others, such as friends and family. The scale also can be completed with respect to
a specific close other (as in the sample items above). In the strangers/humanity
version, the items are worded in terms of compassionate love for strangers/all of
humanity. The CLS has fared well in tests of reliability and validity (see Fehr &
Sprecher, 2009b, for a review). Generally, scores on the scale are highest when the
target is a romantic partner, followed by close others (family and friends). The
lowest scores are obtained when the CLS is completed with respect to strangers/
humanity, although the means are still above the midpoint of the scale (see Fehr &
Sprecher, 2013).
A brief version of the CLS, the Santa Clara Brief Compassion Scale, also has
been published (Hwang, Plante, & Lackey, 2008). Hwang et al.’s intent was to create a
brief measure of the construct of compassion (rather than compassionate love per se).
Five items from the CLS were selected based on item-to-total correlations, factor anal-
yses, and if they were worded in terms of ‘‘compassion’’ rather than ‘‘compassionate
love.’’
Finally, Neff and Karney’s (2005, 2009) assessment of compassionate love reflects
their conceptualization of compassionate love as a global, positive evaluation coupled
with an understanding of the partner’s particular strengths and weaknesses. Specifically,
participants are asked to evaluate their partner in terms of global qualities (e.g., being
a good person) as well as his or her specific traits and abilities (e.g., extraversion,
intellect).
To conclude, there are different tools to assess compassionate love. The CLS is
essentially a face valid measure in which participants rate the extent to which they feel
tenderness, care, and compassion for a range of targets (Sprecher & Fehr, 2005). Neff
and Karney’s (2005, 2009) assessment is more indirect and specifically focused on
perceptions of the global and specific traits of one’s romantic partner. At this point, the
degree of convergence between these measures is not known.
582 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(5)

Is compassionate love redundant with the agape love style?

Scholars who introduce a new concept are obliged to demonstrate that the concept differs
from similar, existing constructs. In the case of compassionate love, the concept that is
arguably most similar, and has a much longer history in the field, is the agape love style.
This love style, along with five others, originally was identified by Lee (1973, 1977)
based on an analysis of literary and historical sources as well as extensive interviews
conducted with individuals about their relationship experiences. More specifically, Lee
constructed a typology of love styles that involves three primary love styles and three
secondary ones. The primary styles are eros (romantic/passionate love), storge (friend-
ship love), and ludus (game-playing love). The secondary styles are mania (possessive,
dependent love), pragma (practical, logical love), and agape (all-giving and selfless
love). The secondary styles are compounds of pairs of the primary styles, although all
six love styles represent distinct orientations to love. Agape is a compound of eros and
storge.
Hendrick and Hendrick (1986, 1989; see Hendrick & Hendrick, 2006, for a review)
subsequently conducted an extensive program of research in which they empirically verified
Lee’s (1973, 1977) typology and fleshed out the relationship implications of each of the love
styles. They originally defined the agape love style as ‘‘an ethereal, altruistic love that takes
no thought of the self but only of the beloved other’’ (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987, p. 144). In
later writings, they tempered this definition, describing agape as ‘‘sacrificial, placing the
loved person’s welfare above one’s own’’ (Hendrick & Hendrick, 2006, p. 153).
The standard measure of the agape love style is the Love Attitudes Scale (which
contains subscales to assess all six love styles; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). This scale is
a modification of a true–false scale that was developed earlier (Lasswell & Lasswell,
1976). In the Love Attitudes Scale, each love style is assessed with 7 items. Items on the
agape scale include: ‘‘I would rather suffer myself than let my partner suffer,’’ ‘‘I would
endure all things for the sake of my partner,’’ and ‘‘I cannot be happy unless I place my
partner’s happiness before my own.’’ In response to criticism that the scale items assess
people’s general orientation to relationships as well as their experiences in specific
relationships, Hendrick and Hendrick (1990) created a relationship-specific version of
the Love Attitudes Scale. They also constructed a short form of the Love Attitudes Scale
(Hendrick, Hendrick, & Dicke, 1998). However, the original scale remains the most
widely used measure (see Fehr, 2013, for a review).
Some scholars have criticized the conceptualization (and, by implication, the mea-
surement) of the agape love style for being too extreme. According to Levy and Davis
(1988), ‘‘Lee’s conception of Agape involves such extreme self-sacrifice that it appears
to tend toward a pathological naiveté and is probably rare as an enduring relationship
disposition’’ (Levy & Davis, 1988, p. 433; see Feeney & Noller, 1990, for a similar crit-
icism). Nevertheless, participants seem to be willing to endorse the agape love style
items. In diverse samples, agape, along with the storge, and eros love styles tends to
receive the highest ratings (with pragma and mania garnering lower ratings and ludus
receiving the lowest ratings; e.g. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986, 1993; Sprecher et al.,
1994; see Fehr, 2013, for a review). Agape also is one of two love styles (the other is
storge) that is most desired in a partner (Hahn & Blass, 1997).
Fehr et al. 583

One of the purposes of the empirical research presented in this article was to dif-
ferentiate compassionate love from the agape love style. We expected that these two
constructs would be substantially related, given that both emphasize giving of oneself for
another, but that they would not be identical. The agape love style is conceptualized as an
orientation to love that involves extreme sacrifice, including suffering, for the sake of
one’s romantic partner. Compassionate love also involves sacrifice and selflessness,
although perhaps not to the same extreme degree. It is also seen (and measured) as a
broader concept that includes empathy, tenderness, caring, and concern for another.
Another distinction is that the agape love style is focused on romantic relationships
whereas compassionate love is conceived of as a kind of love that can be experienced for
a variety of targets, including strangers or even all of humanity, close others (e.g., friends
and family), as well as a romantic partner.

Relation between love styles and compassionate love:

Some new findings
The question of whether compassionate love and the agape love style are redundant
constructs is ultimately an empirical one. We therefore conducted a study in which we
administered scales to assess love styles, compassionate love, and relational outcome
measures. Our main prediction was that people who score high on the agape love style
would report high levels of compassionate love for their partner. However, we did not
expect that the correlations would be so high as to suggest that these are synonymous
constructs. We also predicted that there would be moderate associations between the eros
(romantic and passionate) and the storge (friendship based) love styles and compas-
sionate love. This prediction was based on past studies showing that measures of
romantic/passionate love and companionate love are moderately to strongly correlated
with scores on the CLS (see Fehr & Sprecher, 2013, for a review). Predictions for the
mania (manic and obsessive love) love style were unclear. It was possible that mania
would be highly correlated with compassionate love—those who are consumed by their
love interest might express a willingness to ‘‘give all’’ to that person. However, their
obsession also might interfere with the ability to experience empathy and compassion.
The pragma love style was expected to be unrelated to compassionate love. Whether one
takes a practical, ‘‘shopping list’’ approach to love seems independent of whether one
loves one’s partner compassionately. Finally, it was hypothesized that the ludus (game
playing) love style would be antithetical to compassionate love.

Method
Introductory psychology students from the Subject Pool at the University of Winnipeg
(N ¼ 81) and students recruited through classes at Illinois State University (N ¼ 34)
participated, yielding a total sample size of N ¼ 115 (59 women and 54 men indicated their
gender). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 35 years (M ¼ 20.40 years). A requirement
for participation was involvement in a romantic relationship. In terms of relationship
status, 16.5% of participants were casually dating, 44.3% were seriously dating, 3.5% were
engaged, 24.3% were cohabiting, and 2.6% were married (8.7% reported ‘‘other’’). Mean
584 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(5)

Table 1. Relation between love styles and relational outcomes of compassionate love: Descriptive
statistics.

Total sample Men Women t p

Compassionate love given 5.86 (.85) 5.74 (1.04) 5.98 (.64) 1.51 .13
Compassionate love received 6.21 (1.05) 6.15 (1.12) 6.27 (1.01) .60 .55
Love styles
Agape (selfless) 3.25 (.79) 3.44 (.79) 3.10 (.77) 2.30 .02
Eros (romantic) 4.01 (.73) 3.91 (.67) 4.11 (.78) 1.47 .15
Storge (friendship) 3.20 (1.02) 3.04 (.98) 3.35 (1.04) 1.63 .11
Pragma (practical) 2.37 (.94) 2.20 (.91) 2.50 (.96) 1.74 .09
Mania (possessive) 3.06 (.90) 2.94 (.94) 3.17 (.85) 1.34 .18
Ludus (game playing) 2.27 (.88) 2.46 (.85) 2.09 (.89) 2.26 .03
Relationship outcomes
Satisfaction 3.92 (.77) 3.87 (.70) 3.98 (.83) .77 .44
Commitment 5.58 (1.39) 5.35 (1.53) 5.83 (1.20) 1.85 .07
Note. Compassionate love ratings (given and received) were made on a scale where 7 ¼ high levels of compas-
sionate love; love styles were rated on a scale where 5 ¼ very characteristic of me; relational satisfaction ratings
were made on a scale where 5 ¼ very satisfied; commitment ratings were made on a scale 7 ¼ very committed.

relationship duration was 20.46 months (range ¼ .5–84 months). The majority of parti-
cipants were White (77%), followed by Black (7%), Asian (7%), and other (9%). Most
participants were middle class (51.3%), followed by upper middle class (28.7%), working
class (7.8%), lower middle class (7.8%), and upper class (2.6%).
We administered a questionnaire package that included Sprecher and Fehr’s (2005)
21-item CLS (rated on a scale where 1 ¼ not at all true and 7 ¼ very true) completed
with respect to one’s romantic partner (a ¼ .95 in this sample). Participants also were
asked to report on compassionate love received from their partner (‘‘I feel I receive love
and compassion from ____’’) rated on scale where 7 ¼ very true. Love styles were
assessed using the short form of the Love Attitudes Scale (Hendrick et al., 1998). Items
were rated on a scale where 1 ¼ strongly disagree and 5 ¼ strongly agree. Cronbach as
were .77 for agape, .65 for eros, .76 for storge, .69 for mania, .73 for pragma, and .64 for
ludus. We also assessed relationship satisfaction and commitment. The former was mea-
sured with the Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick, 1988). Items were rated on a
5-point scale (a ¼ .82). Commitment was assessed with Rusbult’s 7-item scale (Rusbult,
Martz, & Agnew, 1998). Response options ranged from 1 ¼ not at all to 7 ¼ very much;
a ¼ .91. (We included additional measures that are not relevant here and therefore are
not discussed further.)

Results and discussion

In this section, we present the findings on the relation between love styles and compas-
sionate love. (Results for the other variables that were measured, such as giving vs.
receiving compassionate love, are reported later.) Mean ratings for compassionate love and
the love styles are shown in Table 1. Participants reported experiencing relatively high
levels of compassionate love for their partner (M ¼ 5.86 on a 7-point scale). Consistent
Fehr et al. 585

Table 2. Correlates of compassionate love given and received in romantic relationships.

Gender differences in correlation strength

Overall Men Women z score p value

Compassionate love given

Love styles
Agape (altruistic) .56** .80** .36* 3.73 < .001
Eros (romantic) .58** .62** .58** .32 .75
Storge (friendship) .31** .37* .20 .96 .34
Pragma (practical) .17y .28* .10 .97 .33
Mania (possessive) .12 .16 .03 .68 .50
Ludus (game playing) .32** .24y .40* .92 .36
Relation quality
Satisfaction .60** .66** .58** .67 .50
Commitment .71** .75** .65** 1.02 .31
Compassionate love received
Satisfaction .64** .60** .68** .70 .48
Commitment .53** .49** .59** .73 .47

Note. Fisher r to z transformation was used to calculate the difference in the women’s and men’s correlations.
y
p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .001.

with past research, women’s and men’s ratings of compassionate love for their romantic
partner did not differ significantly. Ratings of the agape love style scale fell above the mid-
point of the scale (M ¼ 3.25 on a 5-point scale), surpassed only by ratings of the eros love
style. Men scored significantly higher on this scale than did women.1
As predicted, the agape love style was strongly associated with experiencing com-
passionate love for one’s partner, as shown in Table 2. We had not expected that the
strength of this association would vary by gender. However, the correlation between agape
and compassionate love was significantly stronger for men than for women. (This was the
only love style for which correlations with compassionate love differed by gender; see
Table 2.) The eros love style also was strongly associated with compassionate love for a
romantic partner, for both women and men. (A moderate correlation had been predicted.)
Moderate associations were expected between storge and compassionate love. For men, a
moderate correlation was found; for women the correlation was not significant. The mania
love style was unrelated to compassionate love for both women and men, as was the
pragma love style (although the negative correlation for men reached statistical sig-
nificance). As hypothesized, the manipulative ludus love style was negatively associated
with compassionate love for one’s romantic partner and this held for both women and men
(although the correlation was only marginally significant for men).
In short, our key prediction, namely that the agape love style would be strongly
associated with compassionate love was supported. However, the magnitude of the
association was not so high as to suggest that these were redundant constructs. In order
to further differentiate these concepts, we performed additional analyses. First, we
conducted a multiple regression analysis in which we entered the six love styles as
predictors and compassionate love as the criterion variable. As shown in Table 3,
586 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(5)

Table 3. Love styles as predictors of compassionate love.

b t p

Agape (altruistic) .36 4.80 <.001

Eros (romantic) .37 4.65 <.001
Storge (friendship) .19 2.66 .009
Pragma (practical) .10 1.36 .18
Mania (possessive) .07 .97 .34
Ludus (game playing) .08 1.07 .29
Note. In this analysis, all six love styles were entered as simultaneous predictors of compassionate love.

Table 4. Love styles and compassionate love as simultaneous predictors of satisfaction and
commitment.

Satisfaction Commitment

b t p b t p

Compassionate love .30 3.14 .002 .43 5.43 <.001

Agape (altruistic) .003 .04 .97 .003 .05 .96
Eros (romantic) .45 5.32 <.001 .34 4.73 <.001
Storge (friendship) .02 .34 .74 .03 .55 .59
Pragma (practical) .05 .67 .50 .03 .44 .66
Mania (possessive) .06 .91 .37 .17 2.79 .006
Ludus (game playing) .11 1.47 .14 .23 3.73 <.001

compassionate love for one’s partner was predicted by the agape love style. However, it
also was predicted by the eros and storge love styles. The fact that three love styles were
significant predictors of compassionate love—not just agape—lends further support to
the idea that compassionate love is not equal to the agape love style.
Next we examined how compassionate love fared when pitted against the agape love
style in predicting two key relationship outcome variables, namely satisfaction and
commitment. We first conducted a regression analysis in which the agape love style and
compassionate love were entered as predictors with satisfaction as the criterion variable.
Compassionate love was a significant predictor of satisfaction (b ¼ .59, p < .001),
whereas the agape love style was not (b ¼ .01, p ¼ .88). Similar results were obtained
when the analysis was conducted with commitment as the outcome variable (compas-
sionate love: b ¼ .70, p < .001; agape love style: b ¼ .03, p ¼ .74). The fact that
compassionate love made a unique contribution to the prediction of these relational
outcomes beyond its association with the agape love style is compelling evidence for the
distinctness of compassionate love.
Finally, we conducted regression analyses in which we included all six love styles and
compassionate love as predictors of relational outcomes. As shown in Table 4, once
again, compassionate love was a significant predictor of relationship satisfaction. In this
analysis, the eros love style also predicted satisfaction, but the agape love style did not.
When the analysis was conducted with commitment as the outcome variable,
Fehr et al. 587

compassionate love again was a significant predictor; the agape love style was not (see
Table 4). However, as shown in the table, three other love styles predicted commitment,
namely eros and mania (positively) and ludus (negatively).
In summary, people’s approach to love, or their love ‘‘style’’, has implications for how
compassionately they love their romantic partner. Those whose orientation to love is self-
sacrificing and agapic are likely to report high levels of compassionate love for their part-
ner. (This is especially true for men.) Importantly, the relation between the agape love style
and compassionate love is not so strong as to suggest that these are redundant constructs.
Those who take a romantic, passionate approach to love also report high levels of compas-
sionate love for their partner as do people who see love in friendship-based terms (although
this association was not so strong as that found for eros and agape). Although we had pre-
dicted that the highest correlations would be found with the agape love style scale, it is not
surprising that measures of eros and storge also were significantly associated with compas-
sionate love. Berscheid (2010) observed that different kinds of love are likely to co-occur
in relationships. Indeed, measures of the four kinds of love specified in her model tend to
be highly intercorrelated (Fehr & Harasymchuk, 2012; Fehr, Harasymchuk, & Gouriluk,
2010). We further tested the distinctiveness of compassionate love and the agape love style
conducted regression analyses in which relationship satisfaction and commitment were the
criterion variables. Regardless of whether analyses were conducted with only agape and
compassionate love in the equation or all six love styles, compassionate love consistently
emerged as a significant predictor whereas the agape love style was nonsignificant. Thus, it
would appear that people’s relational happiness and their intention to remain in a relation-
ship are both strongly linked to how much compassionate love they experience for their
partner. Whether people subscribe to a selfless, sacrificial orientation to romantic love
(i.e., endorse the agape love style) has less bearing on relational outcomes once compas-
sionate love accounted for.

Individual differences in compassionate love

Who is most likely to extend compassionate love toward their romantic partner?
Research has examined whether there are personality and gender differences in com-
passionate love. We review this research and, where applicable, present findings from
the study that we conducted.

Gender
Given that women tend to be the nurturers (e.g., Taylor, 2006), one might expect that
women would score higher on measures of compassionate love than men. Consistent
with this expectation, when the CLS is administered with respect to close others (family
and friends) or strangers/humanity, women generally score higher than men (Sprecher &
Fehr, 2005; see Fehr & Sprecher, 2013, for a review). However, gender differences are
not found when the scale is completed with respect to one’s romantic partner, as has
been found with dating samples (Fehr et al., 2010) and married samples (Fehr &
Harasymchuk, 2013). This was also the case in our present study (see Table 1).
588 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(5)

Personality
In general, scores on love scales are weakly correlated, if at all, with scores on per-
sonality scales (see Fehr, 2013, in press, for reviews). Fehr and Broughton (2001)
suggested that stronger links between measures of love and personality might be found if
researchers selected traits that are high in relevance to relationships. Toward that end,
Sprecher and Fehr (2011) correlated scores on the CLS with global and relationship-
specific attachment anxiety and avoidance scales given that attachment style is a highly
relationship-relevant individual difference variable. Compassionate love for one’s
romantic partner was negatively correlated with both global and relationship-specific
avoidance. Similar findings were obtained by Fehr and Harasymchuk (2013).2

Compassionate love and prosocial relationship behaviors

Given that compassionate love involves giving oneself for the good of another, those
who experience this kind of love for their romantic partner would be expected to engage
in prosocial behaviors in their relationship. Scores on the CLS have been correlated with
a number of indices of prosociality, including the provision of support, caregiving,
responsiveness, and self-sacrifice.3

Social support
Scores on scales that assess the provision of social support (e.g., practical support and
emotional support) are strongly correlated (in the .50s) with scores on the CLS com-
pleted with respect to close others in general (Sprecher & Fehr, 2005; Study 2) and a
specific close other (romantic partner or a close friend; Sprecher & Fehr, 2005; Study 3).
The same holds true in studies that have focused exclusively on romantic relationships.
For example, Fehr et al. (2010) obtained a correlation of r ¼ .52 between scores on the
CLS and a measure of social support provided to one’s dating partner. Fehr and Har-
asymchuk (2013) reported a similar correlation (r ¼ .56) between CLS scores and social
support received from one’s dating partner.
In line with these findings, Neff and Karney (2005, 2009) found that a wife’s com-
passionate love for her husband (operationalized as a positive global evaluation along
with an accurate understanding of his specific strengths and weaknesses) was associated
with the provision of social support to him during an interaction in the laboratory.
However, a husband’s level of compassionate love was unrelated to provision of support
to his wife.

Caregiving
Compassionate love is associated with caregiving. Fehr et al. (2010) administered the
CLS and Kunce and Shaver’s (1994) measure of caregiving to participants in dating
relationships. Correlations between compassionate love and the caregiving subscales
were .37 for cooperation, .50 for sensitivity, .64 for proximity, and .18 for compulsive
caregiving.
Fehr et al. 589

Roberts, Wise, and Du Benske (2009) conducted a qualitative analysis of compas-

sionate love and caregiving in an end-of-life context (most participants were caregivers
for their spouse). In this context, compassionate love took the form of providing physical
and emotional care, healing and forgiving past transgressions, and letting go of the other.

Responsiveness
People who love their partners compassionately would be expected to be respond to their
partner’s needs with behaviors that convey understanding and caring (e.g., Berscheid,
2006, 2010; Clark & Monin, 2006; Laurenceau, Rivera, Schaffer, & Pietromonaco,
2004). Indeed, Reis (2010) found that scores on the CLS were strongly correlated with
his measure of perceived partner responsiveness in a marital sample (r ¼ .63). Those
who love their partner compassionately also perceive that their partner is responsive to
them (r ¼ .56; Fehr et al., 2010).

Sacrifice
It would be expected that people who love their partner compassionately would be more
willing to make sacrifices for him or her than those who love their partner less com-
passionately. In empirical investigations, compassionate love is strongly associated with
making sacrifices for a dating partner (r ¼ .50, Fehr et al., 2010; r ¼ .51, Fehr &
Harasymchuk, 2013).
Thus, there is mounting evidence that people who are high in compassionate love
report engaging in wide range of prosocial behaviors. Interestingly, recent research
has shown that people who are high in communal strength (i.e., who are motivated
to respond to a partner’s needs without the expectation of reciprocity) are more
likely to experience positive emotions when making sacrifices for their partner and
to experience enhanced relationship satisfaction on those days when sacrifices are
made (Kogan et al., 2010). We suspect that similar results would be found for
people who are high in compassionate love. We also would conjecture that the
relational benefits documented by Kogan et al. would extend more broadly to the
other prosocial behaviors that are associated with compassionate love, such as social
support, caregiving, and responsiveness.

Compassionate love and relationship quality

There is growing empirical support that loving one’s partner compassionately is pre-
dictive of relationship quality. At this point, this evidence is correlational, leaving open
the possibility that being in a fulfilling, happy relationship enhances feelings of com-
passionate love. It is, of course, very likely that compassionate love and relationship
quality are reciprocally causal. In this section, we focus on two indices of relationship
quality, namely closeness and satisfaction.4
590 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(5)

Closeness
In studies on the link between compassionate love and closeness, the latter variable has
been assessed with the Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale (Aron, Aron, & Smollan,
1992). Correlations between scores on the CLS and this measure of closeness are
moderate to strong among samples of newlyweds (r ¼ .49; Reis, 2010) and people in
longer term marriages (r ¼ .57; Fehr & Harasymchuk, 2013).

Satisfaction
In our earlier analysis of the relative contribution of compassionate love versus the agape
love style scale in predicting satisfaction, compassionate love emerged as a stronger
predictor. When we examined the simple correlations between scores on the CLS and
scores on the Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick, 1988), the coefficients were
high for both women and men (see Table 2). High correlations between scores on the
CLS and measures of satisfaction also have been found in our past studies (r ¼ .52 in a
dating sample; Fehr et al., 2010; r ¼ .67 in a married sample; Fehr & Harasymchuk,
2013). Similarly, strong associations between compassionate love and satisfaction have
been found in a program of research examining links between daily acts of compas-
sionate love and satisfaction in a sample of newlyweds (Reis, Maniaci, & Rogge, in
press). Thus, regardless of whether compassionate love is assessed in terms of global
feelings of compassionate love or in terms of everyday acts of compassion, the higher the
scores, the stronger the relation with satisfaction.

Compassionate love and relationship stability

Although less extensively studied than relationship quality, the link between compas-
sionate love and relationship stability has received some attention. In this section, we
focus on three facets of relationship stability: commitment, dissolution strategies, and
relationship termination.5

Commitment
To our knowledge, the association between compassionate love and commitment has not
been explored empirically. Therefore, in the present investigation, we administered
Rusbult et al.’s (1998) commitment scale. We found a very strong correlation between
compassionate love for one’s dating partner and commitment for both women and men
(see Table 2).

Relationship dissolution strategies

Do people who are high in compassionate love terminate their relationships in a more
compassionate way? To find out, Sprecher, Zimmerman, and Abrahams (2010; Study 1)
presented participants with a list of tactics for ending a relationship (adapted from
Baxter, 1982) and asked them to rate how compassionate each strategy was. Positive
tone (e.g., ‘‘tell my partner that I didn’t regret the time we had spent together in the
Fehr et al. 591

relationship’’) and openness (e.g., ‘‘verbally explain to my partner in person my reasons

for desiring to break up’’) were perceived to be the most compassionate strategies.
Withdrawal/avoidance (e.g., ‘‘subtly discourage my partner from sharing aspects of his/
her personal life with me’’) and manipulative tactics (e.g., ‘‘pick an argument with my
partner as an excuse to break up’’) were rated as low in compassion.
In their second study, Sprecher et al. (2010) asked participants to imagine a rela-
tionship dissolution scenario and rate the likelihood that they would use various breakup
strategies (taken from their first study). They also manipulated the reasons for the dis-
solution, ranging from severe transgressions such as infidelity to more benign reasons
such as geographical distance. Participants who loved their partners compassionately
endorsed the more compassionate strategies. The reason for the breakup also affected the
choice of strategies, such that the more severe the transgression, the less compassionate
the strategies chosen for ending the relationship.
In more recent research (Sprecher, Zimmerman, & Fehr, in press), participants were
asked to report on the strategies that they used to terminate an actual relationship (rather
than rely on scenarios). As predicted, those who were high in compassionate love
reported using more compassionate breakup strategies.

Relationship termination
In Neff and Karney’s (2005, 2009) longitudinal program of research on compassionate
love in newlywed couples, it was found that the wives’ level of compassionate love was a
(negative) predictor of the likelihood of divorce after 4 years of marriage. The husbands’
level of compassionate love did not predict relationship outcomes.

Giving versus receiving compassionate love

Relationships are based on a foundation of giving and receiving—either on a tit-for-tat
basis, as equity theory would have it (e.g., Hatfield & Walster, 1978), or over the long
haul, as in the conceptualization of communal relationships (e.g., Clark & Mills, 1979,
1993). Equity and exchange theories would predict that being on the receiving end of
one’s partner’s beneficence should make for a satisfying relationship. Equity theory
would add the caveat ‘‘so long as one is not overbenefited.’’ Research on communal
responsiveness (e.g., Clark & Monin, 2006) would suggest that when it comes to com-
passionate love, it might be more gratifying to be the benefactor.
There is some evidence that people believe that both giving and receiving compas-
sionate love result in positive outcomes for the self. Sprecher, Fehr, and Zimmerman
(2007) asked participants to forecast their emotional reactions to either giving or receiving
compassionate acts in a close friendship (e.g., providing support to a friend who is making
a difficult decision [giving condition]; being supported by a friend when making a difficult
decision [receiving condition]). People who were high in compassionate love expected to
experience an increase in positive emotions (e.g., happiness, joy, and satisfaction), a result
of both giving and receiving compassionate acts. In other research, Sprecher and Fehr
(2006) asked participants to describe an actual experience of compassionate love. In Study
1, no target was specified; in Study 2, participants were asked to focus on either a close or a
592 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(5)

nonclose other. In both studies, the experience of compassionate love for another person
was associated with a host of (self-reported) positive outcomes including feeling good,
increased self-esteem, increased closeness to the other, and heightened feelings of spiri-
tuality. The third study in this series was a replication of Study 2, with the addition of a
condition in which participants were asked to report on an experience of receiving com-
passionate love from a close or nonclose other. Both giving and receiving compassionate
love were perceived as beneficial, resulting in feeling good, increased self-esteem, and the
like. However, mean ratings were significantly higher in the received than given condition
for both close and nonclose others.
In our present study, we examined the effects of giving versus receiving compas-
sionate love on relational outcomes. Equity and exchange theories would lead to the
prediction that those who report receiving compassionate love from their partner would
be more satisfied in their relationship and more committed to it than those who extend
compassionate love to their partner (assuming that the partner on the receiving end was
not overbenefited). On the other hand, in our past studies (e.g., Sprecher & Fehr, 2006),
we found that people reported more benefits to the self when they gave, rather than
received, compassionate love. It seemed possible that this would generalize to relational
outcomes as well, such that they also would report more positive relational benefits from
giving than from receiving compassionate love. To test the effects of giving versus
receiving, we first compared the mean levels of compassionate love given and received.
(Compassionate love received from the partner was assessed using a 1-item, face-valid
question in which participants rated the extent to which they received love and compas-
sion from their partner.) As shown in Table 1, participants reported receiving more com-
passionate love than they reported giving to their romantic partner. This difference was
statistically significant, t(113) ¼ 4.11, p < .001.
Next we turned to relational outcomes. In our earlier analyses, we found that
extending compassionate love to one’s partner (i.e., compassionate love given) was
strongly associated with satisfaction and commitment (see Table 2). When the corre-
lations were computed for compassionate love received from the partner, once again,
strong associations were found, as shown in the bottom of Table 2. We therefore con-
ducted regression analyses to examine which is a stronger predictor of relationship
outcomes—compassionate love given or compassionate love received. For satisfaction,
compassionate love received was a stronger predictor than compassionate love given (b
¼ .44, p ¼ <.001 for received; b ¼ .35, p < .001 for given). However, for commitment,
compassionate love given was a stronger predictor than compassionate love received (b
¼ .61, p < .001 for given; b ¼ .19, p ¼ .02 for received).
In summary, in our past research, there was evidence that people viewed giving and
receiving compassionate love in positive terms. When these experiences differed, it was
in the direction of reporting more positive outcomes for the self when extending com-
passionate love to another. In the present study, we found that both giving and receiving
compassionate love also were strongly linked with relational outcomes. We had
expected that giving this kind of love would be a stronger predictor of relationship
satisfaction and commitment than receiving it. This was the case for commitment but not
for satisfaction (where the opposite was found). Giving compassionate love can be
construed an investment in a relationship, which may account for why it was a stronger
Fehr et al. 593

predictor of commitment than was receiving compassionate love. The fact that satis-
faction was better predicted by receiving than giving compassionate love is not sur-
prising from an equity or exchange point of view but does not line up with our previous
findings that people report more benefits to the self when giving rather than receiving
compassionate love. Before firm conclusions can be drawn, it will be important to
replicate these findings using multi-item measures of both constructs (in the present
study, compassionate love given was assessed with a multiitem measure, whereas
compassionate love received was assessed with a single item).

General discussion
Although the agape love style has received research attention since the mid-1980s,
empirical work on compassionate love is much more recent. Despite its paucity, the
research that exists makes important inroads into previously unexplored terrain. It is now
possible to get a sense of the kind of person who is likely to extend compassionate love to
a romantic partner. Importantly, it is becoming clear that compassionate love plays an
important role in the quality and stability of relationships. Thus, there is reason to be
optimistic that empirical work on this kind of love will continue to flourish.

What does compassionate love look like in a romantic relationship?

In the literature, compassionate love is broadly conceptualized as a kind of love that involves
giving of oneself for the good of another. This is a kind of love that can be experienced in a
number of relationships and even toward strangers or all of humanity. We focused on
compassionate love in a rather understudied context, namely a romantic relationship. We
first examined whether there are particular kinds of people who might be especially likely to
extend compassionate love to their romantic partner. The profile that emerges is that the kind
of person who loves his or her partner compassionately is low in attachment avoidance, has a
sacrificial, altruistic love style and/or a passionate/romantic love style.
The kind of person who loves his or her partner compassionately also is likely to
report engaging in prosocial relationship behaviors such as the provision of support,
caregiving, responsiveness, and sacrifice. Thus, it would appear that the experience of a
selfless, other-oriented kind of love translates into behaviors that promote the partner’s
well-being. (This conclusion, however, cannot be firmly made until behavioral data are
gathered, as discussed later.) Compassionate love for a partner also predicts relational
well-being. Variables such as closeness, satisfaction, and commitment are all substan-
tially correlated with compassionate love. In addition, we found that receiving compas-
sionate love from one’s partner is associated with relationship satisfaction and
commitment. Finally, even when relationships end, those who are high in compassionate
love report using more compassionate relationship dissolution strategies.

Compassionate love: A new name for the agape love style?

Both compassionate love and the agape love style are focused on giving selflessly to
benefit the well-being of another. This raises the question of whether compassionate love
594 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(5)

is simply a new name for an agapic approach to love. As discussed earlier, the agape love
style originally was conceived as one of six different approaches to love and relation-
ships. Scale items are worded in terms of feelings and behaviors toward a romantic part-
ner. Some of the items (e.g., ‘‘I would endure all things for the sake of my partner’’)
probably would not be applicable to other kinds of relationships (e.g., friendships) or
to strangers. Compassionate love is conceptualized as a multifaceted kind of love and,
in that sense, refers to a particular kind of relational experience. CLS items require
respondents to report on the extent to which they experience caring, concern, tenderness,
and empathy for another person or persons. Thus, one construct, the agape love style,
captures a selfless, sacrificial orientation to romantic relationships; the other construct,
compassionate love, refers to a kind of love that people can experience in a romantic
relationship but in other contexts as well.
Of course, the most compelling evidence that the agape love style and compassionate
love are not identical concepts is empirical. We therefore administered measures of both
constructs and assessed the extent to which they are correlated. The correlation (r ¼ .56)
was not so high as to suggest that the agape love style and compassionate love are
redundant constructs. Importantly, in regression analyses, when we entered both com-
passionate love and agape love style scores as predictors of relationship outcomes, agape
was no longer significant once compassionate love was taken into account. This held
whether we designated relationship satisfaction or commitment as the outcome variable
and whether we included all six love styles or just the agape love style in the equation.

Limitations and future directions

Current research on compassionate love, including the study that we presented here, is
limited in a number of ways. One limitation is the reliance on self-report measures. An
important exception is Neff and Karney’s (2005, 2009) program of research in which
couples’ interactions were coded for supportive behaviors and couples were followed
to see whether their marriages remained intact. This work is a model for compassionate
love researchers to follow. Behavioral measures also are called for in studies of the link
between compassionate love and prosocial behaviors. The studies that we reviewed
relied exclusively on self-reports, which is a particular liability given that this is a
domain in which people may feel compelled to respond in socially desirable ways.
Reliance on self-report data also is a limitation of our examination of compassionate
love received. Although people’s perceptions of compassionate love received from their
partner influenced their relationship satisfaction and commitment, the accuracy of those
perceptions remains unknown. In future research, it will be necessary to gather data from
both partners to test the veridicality of these perceptions and to determine whether per-
ceptions of compassionate love received or actual levels of compassionate love received
are more important in predicting relational outcomes. Reis et al.’s (in press) program
of research in which couples reported on their daily compassionate acts as well as their
perceptions of their partner’s compassionate acts is exemplary in this respect.
The trajectory of compassionate love over time is another important area for future
investigation. According to Berscheid (2010), compassionate love may develop early on
in a relationship, but the true test of this kind of love arises when support and sacrifices
Fehr et al. 595

are required over a sustained period. Longitudinal studies in which the development and
maintenance of compassionate love are documented under conditions of high and low
adversity would be an invaluable addition to the literature.
It also will be critical to conduct experiments (e.g., priming compassionate love) to allow
for causal conclusions. It is assumed that compassionate love translates into prosocial
behaviors, for example, but it is quite possible that an experience of caregiving for a partner
or making sacrifices for him or her fuels feelings of compassionate love. It also seems
reasonable to assume that people who love their partners compassionately will experience
greater relationship satisfaction. Indeed, Reis et al. (in press) found that compassionate acts
predicted next-day relationship satisfaction. However, the possibility remains that the causal
direction could be the reverse or that these variables are reciprocally causal. Research also
should be conducted to test more complex causal pathways. For example, it seems likely that
compassionate love leads to prosocial behavior, which, in turn, contributes to increased
satisfaction, which then results in increased commitment and stability.
Finally, it will be important in future research to demonstrate empirically that com-
passionate love can be distinguished from other kinds of love that people can experience
for a romantic partner. Berscheid (2010) has argued that the four kinds of love identified in
her taxonomy are likely to co-occur in relationships, but that they can, and should, be
distinguished. In our ongoing research, we are attempting to disentangle these kinds of
love (e.g., Fehr & Harasymchuk, 2012). There is clear evidence that different kinds of love
‘‘go together,’’ as Berscheid suggested. The challenge is to demonstrate their distinctness,
given the high intercorrelations between scales that assess the various kinds of love.

Conclusion
Even though research on compassionate love is still in its infancy, the studies that have
been conducted so far suggest that experiencing a selfless, other-centered kind of love
has far-reaching consequences. People who love their partners compassionately report
a prosocial relationship climate characterized by caring, sacrifice, and support. Compas-
sionate love also is associated with the most prized relational outcome variables, namely
satisfaction and commitment. Relationship scientists have been concerned with devel-
oping and implementing strategies for keeping passionate, romantic love alive in rela-
tionships (e.g., Aron, Norman, Aron, McKenna, & Heyman, 2000). The research that is
accumulating on compassionate love suggests it may be just as important for relation-
ship scientists to find ways of maintaining and enhancing compassionate love.

Funding
Support for this research from the Fetzer Institute and a Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada grant awarded to the first author is gratefully acknowledged.

Notes
1. Gender differences on the agape love style score tend to be mixed. The most common finding is
that of no gender difference. However, a few recent studies have found that men scored higher
on this love style than women (see Fehr, in press, 2013, for reviews), which was also the case in
the present study (see Table 1).
596 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(5)

2. Scores on the agape love style scale are generally uncorrelated with measures of standard per-
sonality traits. However, there is some evidence that agape is negatively correlated with avoi-
dant attachment and positively correlated with secure attachment, although the associations
tend to be small in magnitude (see Fehr, in press, 2013, for reviews).
3. To our knowledge, the relation between the agape love style and prosocial behavior has not
been examined empirically.
4. We are not aware of research on the relation between the agape love style and closeness. How-
ever, the relation between the agape love style and satisfaction has been studied extensively. In
the studies reviewed by Fehr (2013), correlations varied from .07 to .57, with most coefficients
falling in the range of .20 to .39, suggesting a moderate association (see also meta-analysis by
Graham, 2011).
5. Correlations between the agape love style and commitment tend to be moderate in magnitude
(e.g., Hendrick & Hendrick, 1989; Levy & Davis, 1988). Regarding relationship stability, Hen-
drick, Hendrick, and Adler (1988) examined the role of love styles in the dissolution of dating
relationships over a 2-month period. Couples whose relationship remained intact were higher
on eros and lower on ludus than those whose relationship had ended. The two groups did not
differ significantly in agape.

References
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure
of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612.
Aron, A., Fisher, H. E., & Strong, G. (2006). Romantic love. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman
(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 595–614). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R. (2000). Couples’ shared
participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 273–284.
Baxter, L. A. (1982). Strategies for ending relationships: Two studies. The Western Journal of
Speech Communication, 46, 223–241.
Berscheid, E. (2006). Searching for the meaning of ‘‘love’’. In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.),
The new psychology of love (pp. 171–183). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Berscheid, E. (2010). Love in the fourth dimension. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 1–25.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction and exchange in communal relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–24.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1993). The differences between communal and exchange relationships:
What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 684–691.
Clark, M. S., & Monin, J. K. (2006). Giving and receiving communal responsiveness as love. In
R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.), The new psychology of love (pp. 200–221). New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281–291.
Fehr, B. (1988). Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 557–579.
Fehr, B. (2013). The social psychology of love. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), Handbook
of close relationships (pp. 201–233). New York, NY: Oxford Press.
Fehr et al. 597

Fehr, B. (in press). Love: Conceptualization and experience. In J. A. Simpson & J. Dovidio (Eds.),
Handbook of personality and social psychology: Volume 2: Interpersonal relationships and
group processes (pp. 495–522). Washington, DC: APA Press.
Fehr, B., & Broughton, R. (2001). Gender and personality differences in conceptions of love: An
interpersonal theory analysis. Personal Relationships, 8, 115–136.
Fehr, B., & Harasymchuk, C. (2012, July). Compassionate love in a close relationship con-
text. In H. Reis & S. Sprecher (Chairs), Compassionate love: First looks at an emerging
construct. Symposium held at the International Association for Relationship Research
Conference, Chicago, IL.
Fehr, B., & Harasymchuk, C. (2013). Compassionate love in intimate relationships. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Winnipeg.
Fehr, B., Harasymchuk, C., & Gouriluk, J. (2010, June). Validation of the quadrumvirate model of
love. Invited paper presented at the Canadian Psychological Association Conference (Social
Psychology Faculty Symposium on Romantic Relationships), Winnipeg, MB.
Fehr, B., & Sprecher, S. (2004, July). Compassionate love: Conceptual, relational, and behavioral
issues. In S. Sprecher & L. Underwood (Chairs), Compassionate love in diverse relational and
situational contexts. Symposium conducted at the International Association for Relationships
Research Conference, Madison, WI.
Fehr, B., & Sprecher, S. (2009a). Prototype analysis of compassionate love. Personal Relation-
ships, 16, 343–364.
Fehr, B., & Sprecher, S. (2009b). Compassionate love: Conceptual, measurement, and relational
issues. In B. Fehr, S. Sprecher, & L. Underwood (Eds.), The science of compassionate love:
Theory, research, and applications (pp. 27–52). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Fehr, B., & Sprecher, S. (2013). Compassionate love: What we know so far. In M. Hojjat &
D. Cramer (Eds.), Positive psychology of love (pp. 106–120). New York, NY: Oxford Press.
Fehr, B., Sprecher, S., & Underwood, L. (Eds.). (2009). The science of compassionate love: The-
ory, research, and applications. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Felmlee, D., & Sprecher, S. (2006). Love: Psychological and sociological perspective. In J. E. Stets &
J. H. Turner (Eds.), Handbook of sociology of emotions (pp. 389–409). New York, NY:
Springer.
Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and
empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 351–374.
Graham, J. M. (2011). Measuring love in romantic relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 748–771.
Hahn, J., & Blass, T. (1997). Dating partner preferences: A function of similarity of love styles.
Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 12, 595–610.
Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Love, sex, and intimacy: Their psychology, biology, and
history. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Hatfield, E., & Walster, G. W. (1978). A new look at love. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 50, 93–98.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50, 392–402.
Hendrick, S., & Hendrick, C. (1987). Multidimensionality of sexual attitudes. Journal of Sex
Research, 23, 502–526.
598 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(5)

Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1989). Research on love: Does it measure up? Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 56, 784–794.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1990). A relationship-specific version of the love attitudes scale.
Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 5, 239–254.
Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1993). Lovers as friends. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
tionships, 10, 459–466.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (2006). Styles of romantic love. In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis
(Eds.), The new psychology of love (pp. 149–170). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hendrick, S. S., Hendrick, C., & Adler, N. L. (1988). Romantic relationships: Love,
satisfaction, and staying together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
980–988.
Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. S., & Dicke, A. (1998). The Love Attitudes Scale: Short form. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 147–159.
Hwang, J., Plante, T., & Lackey, K. (2008). The development of the Santa Clara Brief Compassion
Scale: An abbreviation of Sprecher and Fehr’s Compassionate Love Scale. Pastoral Psychol-
ogy, 56, 421–428.
Keltner, D. (2009). Born to be good: The science of a meaningful life. New York, NY: W. W.
Norton & Company.
Kogan, A., Impett, E. A., Oveis, C., Hui, B., Gordon, A. M., & Keltner, D. (2010). When giving
feels good: The intrinsic benefits of sacrifice in romantic relationships for the communally
motivated. Psychological Science, 21, 1918–1924.
Kunce, L. J., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). An attachment-theoretical approach to caregiving in
romantic relationships. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Attachment processes in
adulthood (pp. 205–237). London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Lasswell, T. E., & Lasswell, M. E. (1976). I love you but I’m not in love with you. Journal of
Marriage and Family Counseling, 2, 211–224.
Laurenceau, J., Rivera, L. M., Schaffer, A. R., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (2004). Intimacy as an inter-
personal process: Current status and future directions. In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.),
Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 61–78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Lee, J. A. (1973). The colours of love: An exploration of the ways of loving. Don Mills, Ontario:
New Press.
Lee, J. A. (1977). A typology of styles of loving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3,
173–182.
Levy, M. B., & Davis, K. E. (1988). Lovestyles and attachment styles compared: Their relations to
each other and to various relationship characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships, 5, 439–471.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and
change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P., Bar-On, N., & Sahdra, B. (in press). Security enhancement, self-esteem
threat, and mental depletion: Affect provision of a safe haven and secure base to a romantic
partner. Journal of Personal and Social Relationships. doi:10.1177/0265407514525887
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Gillath, O. (2009). A behavioral systems perspective on compas-
sionate love. In B. Fehr, S. Sprecher, & L. G. Underwood (Eds.), The science of compassionate
love (pp. 201–222). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Fehr et al. 599

Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2005). To know you is to love you: The implications of global adora-
tion and specific accuracy for marital relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 88, 480–497.
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2009). Stress and reactivity to daily relationship experiences: How
stress hinders adaptive processes in marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
97, 435–450.
Reis, H. T. (2010, October). Everyday acts of compassionate love in dyadic context. Paper pre-
sented at the Fetzer Institute, Kalamazoo, MI.
Reis, H. T., Maniaci, M. R., & Rogge, R. D. (in press). The expression of compassionate love in
everyday compassionate acts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (Special Issue on
Compassionate Love). doi:10.1177/0265407513507214
Roberts, L. J., Wise, M., & Du Benske, L. L. (2009). Compassionate family caregiving in the light and
shadow of death. In B. Fehr, S. Sprecher, & L. Underwood (Eds.), The science of compassionate
love: Research, theory and application (pp. 311–344). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
16, 265–273.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring com-
mitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Rela-
tionships, 5, 357–391.
Shacham-Dupont, S. (2003). Compassion and love in relationships—Can they coexist? Relation-
ship Research News, 2, 13–15.
Sprecher, S., Aron, A., Hatfield, E., Cortese, A., Potapova, E., & Levitskaya, A. (1994). Love:
American style, Russian style and Japanese style. Personal Relationships, 1, 349–369.
Sprecher, S., & Fehr, B. (2005). Compassionate love for close others and humanity. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 629–652.
Sprecher, S., & Fehr, B. (2006). Enhancement of mood and self-esteem as a result of giving and
receiving compassionate love. Current Research in Social Psychology, 11, 227–242.
Sprecher, S., & Fehr, B. (2011). Dispositional attachment and relationship-specific attachment as predic-
tors of compassionate love for a partner. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 558–574.
Sprecher, S., Fehr, B., & Zimmerman, C. (2007). Expectation for mood enhancement as a result of
helping: The effects of gender and compassionate love. Sex Roles, 56, 543–549.
Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (1998). Passionate and companionate love in courting and young
married couples. Sociological Inquiry, 68, 163–185.
Sprecher, S., Zimmerman, C., & Abrahams, E. M. (2010). Choosing compassionate strategies to
end a relationship: Effects of compassionate love for partner and the reason for the breakup.
Social Psychology, 41, 66–75.
Sprecher, S., Zimmerman, C., & Fehr, B. (In press). The influence of compassionate love on stra-
tegies used to end a relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. doi:10.1177/
0265407513517958
Surra, C. A., Gray, C. R., Boettcher, T. M. J., Cottle, N. R., & West, A. R. (2006). From
courtship to universal properties: Research on dating and mate selection, 1950 to 2003.
In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relation-
ships (pp. 113–130). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, S. (2006). Tend and befriend: Biobehavioral bases of affiliation under stress. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 273–277.
600 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(5)

Underwood, L. G. (2002). The human experience of compassionate love: Conceptual mapping and
data from selected studies. In S. G. Post, L. G. Underwood, J. P. Schloss, & W. B. Hurlbut (Eds.),
Altruism and altruistic love: Science, philosophy, and religion in dialogue (pp. 72–88).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Underwood, L. G. (2009). Compassionate love: A framework for research. In B. Fehr, S. Sprecher, &
L. G. Underwood (Eds.), The science of compassionate love: Theory, research, and applications
(pp. 3–25). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Underwood, L. G., & Teresi, J. A. (2002). The daily spiritual experience scale: Development,
theoretical description, reliability, exploratory factor analysis, and preliminary construct
validity using health-related data. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 24, 22–33.

View publication stats