Compassionate Love: A Review and New Findings on this Overlooked Form of Romantic Love, Apuntes de Psicología

¡Descarga Compassionate Love: A Review and New Findings on this Overlooked Form of Romantic Love y más Apuntes en PDF de Psicología solo en Docsity! Article Compassionate love in romantic relationships: A review and some 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 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 2014, Vol. 31(5) 575–600 ª The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0265407514533768 spr.sagepub.com J S P R at Univ de La Laguna Biblioteca on February 29, 2016spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 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 576 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(5) at Univ de La Laguna Biblioteca on February 29, 2016spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 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 Fehr et al. 579 at Univ de La Laguna Biblioteca on February 29, 2016spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 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. 580 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(5) at Univ de La Laguna Biblioteca on February 29, 2016spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 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. Fehr et al. 581 at Univ de La Laguna Biblioteca on February 29, 2016spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 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 (a¼ .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 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. 584 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(5) at Univ de La Laguna Biblioteca on February 29, 2016spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 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, 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. yp < .10; *p < .05; **p < .001. Fehr et al. 585 at Univ de La Laguna Biblioteca on February 29, 2016spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 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, 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 <.001 586 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(5) at Univ de La Laguna Biblioteca on February 29, 2016spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 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 Fehr et al. 589 at Univ de La Laguna Biblioteca on February 29, 2016spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 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 590 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(5) at Univ de La Laguna Biblioteca on February 29, 2016spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 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 Fehr et al. 591 at Univ de La Laguna Biblioteca on February 29, 2016spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 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 594 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(5) at Univ de La Laguna Biblioteca on February 29, 2016spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 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). Fehr et al. 595 at Univ de La Laguna Biblioteca on February 29, 2016spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 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. 596 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(5) at Univ de La Laguna Biblioteca on February 29, 2016spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 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. Fehr et al. 599 at Univ de La Laguna Biblioteca on February 29, 2016spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 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. 600 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(5) at Univ de La Laguna Biblioteca on February 29, 2016spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from