CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 118Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsEmpathy and Medical EducationPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

Ways of Knowing Compassion: How Do We Come to Know, Understand, and Measure Compassion When We See It?

Open access
Mascaro, Jennifer S., Florian, Marianne P., Ash, Marcia J., Palmer, Patricia K., Frazier, Tyralynn, Condon, Paul, Raison, Charles·2020·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.547241PMC PMC7561712
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Over the last decade, empirical research on compassion has burgeoned in the biomedical, clinical, translational, and foundational sciences. Increasingly sophisticated understandings and measures of compassion continue to emerge from the abundance of multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary studies. Naturally, the diversity of research methods and theoretical frameworks employed presents a significant challenge to consensus and synthesis of this knowledge. To bring the empirical findings of separate and sometimes siloed disciplines into conversation with one another requires an examination of their disparate assumptions about what compassion is and how it can be known. Here, we present an integrated theoretical review of methodologies used in the empirical study of compassion. Our goal is to highlight the distinguishing features of each of these ways of knowing compassion, as well as the strengths and limitations of applying them to specific research questions. We hope this will provide useful tools for selecting methods that are tailored to explicit objectives (methods matching), taking advantage of methodological complementarity across disciplines (methods mixing), and incorporating the empirical study of compassion into fields in which it may be missing.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.547241

Cites

207 of 207 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The model chosen necessarily depends on the theory underpinning a given study.

    “The model chosen necessarily depends on the theory underpinning a given study [27].”

    From Validation of the compassionate engagement and action scales, compassion scale, and Sussex-Oxford compassion scales in a French-Canadian sample (2024) · cites this paper as [27]

    In “Method Matching,” the paper says that methods chosen to evaluate compassion should be theory-grounded and guided by research hypotheses. The claim instead says the model chosen necessarily depends on the study’s theory; the passage supports theory-guided method selection, but not that stronger statement about model selection. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 211 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. American Medical Association (2016). AMA Code of Medical Ethics: Principles of Medical Ethics. Available online at: https://www.ama-assn.org/sites/ama-assn.org/files/corp/media-browser/principles-of-medical-ethics.pdf (accessed October 4, 2019).
  2. Cameron K. S. (2017). “ Organizational compassion: manifestations through organizations,” in Oxford Handbook of Compassion Science, eds Seppälä E. M. Simon-Thomas E. Brown S. L. Worline M. C. Cameron C. D. Doty J. R. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 421– 434.
  3. Fisette D. (2018). “ Phenomenology and descriptive psychology: Brentano, Stumpf, Husserl,” in The Oxford Handbook of the History of Phenomenology, ed. Zahavi D. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 89– 103.
  4. Goleman D. Davidson R. J. (2017). Altered Traits: Science Reveals How Meditation Changes Your Mind, Brain, and Body. New York, NY: Penguin Publishing Group.
  5. Neff K. D. Pittman M. (2010). Self-compassion and psychological resilience among adolescents and young adults. Self Ident. 9 225– 240. 10.1080/15298860902979307 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Saldaña J. (2016). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 3rd Edn Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  7. Slingerland E. Collard M. (2012b). “ Introduction: creating consilience: toward a new wave,” in Creating Consilience: Integrating the Sciences and the Humanities, eds Slingerland E. G. Collard M. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 3– 42.
  8. Wilson E. O. (1999). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, Vol. 31 New York, NY: Vintag.
  9. Zahavi D. (2018). “ Intersubjectivity, sociality, community: the contribution of the early phenomenologists,” in The Oxford Handbook of the History of Phenomenology, ed. Zahavi D. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 734– 752.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mascaro, J. S., Florian, M. P., Ash, M. J., Palmer, P. K., Frazier, T., Condon, P., & Raison, C.
Affiliations
  • Emory University (US)
  • Southern Oregon University (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Mascaro, Jennifer S.
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2020-10-02
Volume
11
Pages
547241-547241
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2020.547241
PMC
PMC7561712
OpenAlex
W3090052176
Cited by
118
References
211
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
compassion, ways of knowing, theoretical framework, research methodology, methodological complementarity, interdisciplinary synthesis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review