Compassion for animals: a narrative review

1 Introduction

Human relationships with nonhuman animals have historically been shaped by asymmetrical power relations characterized by use, control, and exploitation. Across cultures and historical periods, animals have frequently been positioned as instrumental resources rather than as sentient beings with subjective experiences. Psychological and sociological research suggests that this framing has facilitated the normalization of harm toward animals by reducing their moral visibility and diminishing the perceived relevance of their suffering (Amiot and Bastian, 2015; Serpell, 2004). These dynamics have been reinforced by psychological processes such as moral disengagement, which allow individuals and societies to participate in practices that cause animal suffering while maintaining a coherent moral self-image (Bastian et al., 2012; Rothgerber, 2013).

Empirical evidence indicates that moral concern for animals is not evenly distributed, but instead follows patterned distinctions shaped by perception and categorization. Companion animals such as dogs and cats are typically viewed as emotionally close and morally salient, which facilitates empathy, attachment, and protective responses (Serpell, 2004; Charles, 2014). By contrast, animals categorized as food, pests, or commodities are more likely to be excluded from ethical consideration, despite evidence that they possess comparable capacities for pain, emotion, and sociality (Bastian et al., 2012; Bratanova et al., 2012).

These disparities become even more pronounced in relation to less familiar or perceptually distant species, such as fish, insects, and cephalopods. Such taxa are less likely to spontaneously elicit caregiving responses, in part because they lack features that typically activate affective resonance. However, accumulating scientific evidence suggests that at least some of these species possess capacities relevant to the experience of pain or affective states. The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness further supports the view that the potential for sentience extends beyond traditionally recognized groups, thereby challenging intuitive boundaries of moral concern and inviting a broader reconsideration of the range of beings included within the moral circle (Low et al., 2012).

This asymmetry in moral concern aligns with the notion of a phyloempathic hierarchy, whereby empathic responses vary systematically across species as a function of perceived similarity, familiarity, and relational proximity (Paulhus, 2022). Such processes are further shaped by developmental and sociocultural contexts, as illustrated by evidence showing that youth attitudes toward stray animals vary considerably, reflecting differences in empathy and moral concern across environments (Su et al., 2026). Taken together, these patterns point to a broader moral compartmentalization grounded less in actual differences in sentience than in culturally constructed categories, which are reinforced by social norms, dietary practices, and economic structures (Loughnan et al., 2010).

Religious and cultural systems have played an important role in sustaining hierarchical distinctions between humans and nonhuman animals. Anthropological and psychological analyses indicate that ritualized practices involving animal sacrifice and consumption have historically contributed to the legitimation and normalization of harm by situating it within moral, symbolic, or sacred frameworks (Piazza et al., 2015; Kemmerer, 2012). In contemporary contexts, formalized rules governing animal slaughter and consumption may continue to serve a similar function by reducing ethical discomfort and moral dissonance, while leaving the underlying ethical status of animals largely unquestioned (Bastian et al., 2012). Within several Abrahamic traditions, dominant theological interpretations have often been grounded in anthropocentric assumptions that grant humans authority over animals, an orientation that can inadvertently justify practices prioritizing human interests over animal welfare and constrain the development of more expansive ethical concern for nonhuman animals (Mather, 2024). Although alternative spiritual and philosophical perspectives emphasize non harm and recognize animals as morally sentient beings (Barstow, 2019), these views have remained relatively peripheral and have had limited influence on prevailing social norms and institutional practices (Caviola et al., 2019).

Despite significant advances in scientific understanding, ethical discourse, and technological development, progress in animal welfare has not paralleled broader societal advancement. Industrialized systems of farming, research, and entertainment have transformed animal exploitation into large scale and mechanized processes that often intensify suffering while increasing psychological distance from its consequences (Amiot and Bastian, 2015; Singer and Mason, 2006). Research suggests that this distancing weakens empathic engagement and facilitates continued participation in harmful practices (Bastian et al., 2012; Graça et al., 2014). These findings highlight the limitations of regulatory and technological solutions when they are not accompanied by shifts in moral perception and emotional engagement.

Within this context, compassion has emerged as a psychological capacity with the potential to expand ethical concern beyond human boundaries. Compassion is commonly defined as sensitivity to suffering coupled with a commitment to alleviate it, and research indicates that it plays a central role in prosocial behavior and ethical decision making (Gilbert, 2014; Goetz et al., 2010). Emerging evidence suggests that compassion can be directed toward nonhuman animals and is associated with attitudes and behaviors relevant to animal welfare, ethical consumption, and environmental concern (Caviola et al., 2019; Paul, 2000). Cultivating compassion for animals may therefore represent a critical pathway for transforming entrenched patterns of domination and fostering more ethical forms of coexistence.

2 Scope and method of the review

The present narrative review synthesizes theoretical perspectives and empirical findings on compassion for animals, with the aim of clarifying its conceptual foundations, empirical support, and applied relevance. It examines how compassion directed toward animals has been conceptualized, delineates its relationship to closely related constructs, particularly empathy, and evaluates the extent to which these constructs overlap or diverge in the context of animal directed responses. The review also considers empirical evidence on compassion and empathy toward animals, explores relational contexts such as animal assisted interventions, and discusses practices that may foster compassion toward non-human animals. By grounding the analysis in peer reviewed research, the manuscript aims to clarify the role of compassion in addressing animal suffering and to identify theoretically informed directions for future research and application.

To address these objectives, the review integrates both foundational contributions and recent advances in the literature. Particular attention is given to contemporary empirical and theoretical developments, while retaining earlier work that remains influential in shaping current understanding.

The literature search was not systematic and primarily relied on Google Scholar, using combinations of keywords such as “compassion” or “empathy” with “animal.” Additional keywords were used to target specific themes, for example “human animal relations” when examining relational dynamics, and “animal” with “therapy” when focusing on animal assisted interventions. No restrictions were placed on publication date. Articles in English and French were considered if they were deemed relevant to the topic. The review included theoretical, empirical, and review papers, without restriction on study design. Selection was guided by the relevance of the work to the central constructs under examination, the clarity of its conceptual contributions, and the rigor of its empirical or theoretical approach.

Priority was given to peer reviewed empirical studies, theoretical articles, and review papers that directly addressed compassion or closely related constructs. In addition, research from adjacent domains, including environmental psychology and moral psychology, was incorporated when it contributed to a broader understanding of compassion toward animals or related forms of connectedness. When multiple perspectives were available, efforts were made to reflect the diversity of viewpoints within the field.

Given the narrative nature of the review, the process of study selection necessarily involved interpretative judgment. Care was taken to ensure a balanced and comprehensive synthesis by integrating findings from multiple research groups, theoretical traditions, and methodological approaches. This approach was intended to provide a coherent and nuanced account of the current state of knowledge, while acknowledging areas of convergence, divergence, and ongoing uncertainty within the field.

It is also important to situate this review within the current stage of development of the field. Empirical research on compassion and empathy toward animals remains relatively limited, and the only validated measures to date have been developed or validated by the first author of the present paper and his collaborators. This reflects the emerging nature of the domain and, while providing an initial empirical foundation, underscores the need for further independent validation and the development of additional instruments.

3 Conceptualizing compassion for animals

Compassion is related to but distinct from empathy. However, this distinction is not universally accepted. Some authors conceptualize empathy and compassion as largely overlapping constructs, and in certain traditions the terms are used interchangeably, particularly when referring to affective resonance with another being’s suffering (Batson, 2011; Preston and de Waal, 2002). From this perspective, compassion may be understood as an empathic response to distress. In contrast, other contemporary models distinguish compassion by emphasizing its caregiving, regulatory, and action-oriented components (Strauss et al., 2016; Goetz et al., 2010; Gilbert, 2014; Singer and Klimecki, 2014). Within these frameworks, empathy refers primarily to understanding or sharing another’s emotional state, whereas compassion involves an additional motivational and behavioral orientation toward alleviating suffering. Empathy can occur without prosocial action and may at times lead to personal distress, whereas compassion is typically associated with affiliative motivation and adaptive regulation. Compassion has also been conceptualized as a socially embedded moral emotion that supports prosocial behavior and social bonding within interpersonal and cultural contexts (Haidt, 2003, Goetz et al., 2010). In line with these perspectives, this paper adopts a multidimensional view that acknowledges compassion’s affective overlap with empathy, while emphasizing its caregiving and motivational functions (Khoury and Vergara, 2024, 2026).

Within psychological research, compassion has traditionally been examined in relation to self-directed or human directed contexts. Compassion toward animals has received comparatively little attention, in part due to the anthropocentric orientation of dominant models of social and clinical functioning. However, evolutionary and contemplative perspectives suggest that compassion for animals represents a theoretically central dimension of compassion that cannot be reduced to human focused forms (Caviola et al., 2019; Gilbert, 2014; Khoury and Vergara, 2026).

From an evolutionary standpoint, compassion is rooted in caregiving systems shaped by selective pressures that prioritize survival and reproductive success (Gilbert, 2014; Goetz et al., 2010). These systems are tuned to respond to vulnerability and distress, particularly in beings who are dependent, nonverbal, or unable to reciprocate. At the same time, they are not morally impartial, as they tend to be calibrated toward kin, socially proximate individuals, and targets displaying features that elicit caregiving responses, such as vulnerability or neoteny. Such biases help explain why compassion is distributed unevenly across targets, including differential concern for humans, companion animals, and other species. Nonhuman animals, especially those perceived as sentient and vulnerable, can strongly activate these caregiving systems. In these contexts, compassion toward animals relies less on social reciprocity or moral accountability and more on affective resonance combined with protective motivation, engaging regulatory processes that are partially distinct from those involved in compassion toward other humans.

This evolutionary architecture also introduces an important tension when considering frameworks that conceptualize compassion as a virtue that can be cultivated and extended. While virtue-based approaches assume that compassion can be refined through intentional practice and habituation, the underlying affective system may constrain the extent to which such expansion occurs spontaneously or uniformly across contexts. Accordingly, processes of cultivation may not fully override evolved tendencies but instead interact with them, resulting in partial and context dependent extensions of compassion.

Although compassion toward both humans and animals engages caregiving systems, the relational context in which it unfolds may differ. Human-directed compassion is often embedded within complex interpersonal histories and may be influenced by concerns related to social evaluation, reciprocity, or past relational experiences. In contrast, animal-directed compassion frequently occurs in contexts where such evaluative and reciprocal dynamics are less salient. This contextual difference has implications for emotion regulation, as compassion toward animals may provide a comparatively less threatening entry point into affiliative and caregiving states.

Empirical findings further indicate that the relationship between compassion across domains is neither uniform nor straightforward. Some studies suggest that compassion for animals may coexist with comparatively lower levels of self-compassion or compassion toward humans, pointing to partial independence between these domains (Khoury and Vergara, revised and resubmitted). However, this pattern is not consistently observed. Other research reports positive associations between compassion or empathy across targets, supporting the view that shared affective and motivational processes may underlie responses to suffering more broadly (Signal and Taylor, 2007; Taylor and Signal, 2005).

Taken together, these findings suggest that compassion domains may show both overlap and divergence, depending on individual differences, contextual influences, and measurement approaches. Rather than reflecting a fully unified or fully independent system, compassion may be organized as a constellation of partially overlapping processes that can differentiate under certain conditions. This variability underscores the importance of adopting multidimensional and person-centered approaches to better understand how compassion is distributed across domains within individuals. It is noteworthy that most, if not all, of the existing evidence is based on cross-sectional and correlational findings, which limits the ability to draw definitive conclusions regarding the relationships among compassion directed toward the self, other humans, and non-human animals. Longitudinal and experimental studies are therefore needed to clarify these associations, examine their directionality, and identify both shared and distinct underlying mechanisms.

Beyond affective regulation, compassion for animals is closely linked to moral expansiveness and ecological embeddedness. Moral expansiveness refers to the breadth of beings included within one’s moral circle, ranging from narrow self-focused concern to inclusive concern for all sentient life. Compassion for animals reflects an expansion of ethical concern beyond human-centered boundaries and has been empirically associated with nature relatedness and environmental concern (Khoury and Vergara, 2024; Nisbet et al., 2009). Extending this line of work, evidence indicates that moral expansiveness is linked to pro environmental behavior through moral emotions, suggesting that broadening moral concern may facilitate more integrative ecological and animal-related outcomes (Takamatsu et al., 2025).

From an embodied and embedded perspective, compassion for animals reflects a relational stance toward the living environment rather than toward discrete social agents (Khoury, 2019; Khoury and Vergara, 2025). This orientation may support psychological well-being through mechanisms such as increased connectedness with nature, reduced self-referential processing, and a broader sense of belonging that is not contingent on social performance or approval.

Given the conceptual overlap yet functional distinctions between empathy and compassion, this paper considers both constructs in relation to animals. Although compassion is distinguished by its caregiving and motivational dimensions, empirical evidence on both empathy and compassion is reviewed, recognizing that each contributes to understanding moral concern and prosocial engagement toward nonhuman animals.

4 Measurement of compassion for animals

Early research on human animal relations primarily relied on empathy-based measures. The Empathy Toward Animals scale assesses cognitive and affective responses to animal suffering and was adapted from human directed empathy instruments such as the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1983; Dias Martins et al., 2025, 2026). While valuable, these measures do not capture the motivational and behavioral components central to compassion.

The Compassion Questionnaire for Animals was the first, and remains the only, instrument specifically developed to address this gap by conceptualizing compassion for animals as a multidimensional construct (Khoury and Vergara, 2024). The original version comprises 28 items and captures three core dimensions of compassion, namely compassionate thoughts and feelings toward animals, actions or intentions to act compassionately, and the capacity to connect one’s own suffering with the suffering of animals. Together, these dimensions encompass affective sensitivity to animal suffering, cognitive understanding of that suffering, behavioral motivation to alleviate it, and a relational sense of connectedness with animals’ suffering. This conceptual structure is consistent with contemporary models of compassion and allows for a clear distinction between compassion for animals and related constructs such as empathy. Empirical validation studies have demonstrated strong internal consistency, convergent validity with measures of empathy toward animals and nature relatedness, and discriminant validity from theoretically unrelated constructs (Khoury and Vergara, 2024). To enhance feasibility and applicability across research and applied contexts, a shortened 18-item version was subsequently developed and validated, preserving the theoretical coherence and psychometric robustness of the original instrument while facilitating broader use (Khoury and Vergara, 2025).

Cluster analytic findings indicate that compassion for animals is meaningfully related to broader empathic and environmental orientations. Higher compassion for animals is associated with greater nature relatedness and is influenced by demographic factors such as age and gender, whereas mindfulness alone does not appear to predict compassion for animals. These findings suggest that cultivating compassion specific skills may represent a pathway for enhancing ecological connectedness and pro environmental attitudes (Khoury and Vergara, 2024, 2025).

It is important to note that, in this conceptualization and operationalization of compassion for animals, the term “animal” is used to denote a broad and inclusive category rather than specific subtypes such as mammals or companion animals. This approach was intended to ensure that the operationalization remains applicable across diverse contexts, while acknowledging that the meaning of “animal” may vary depending on situational and cultural interpretations. However, this choice also entails important limitations.

Importantly, this conceptualization and operationalization typically assess general tendencies toward animals without systematically distinguishing between categories such as companion animals, farmed animals, wildlife, or less familiar taxa. As a result, it remains unclear whether elevated scores reflect generalized compassion across species or more selective forms of concern. This limitation is consequential, as different categories of animals vary substantially in their capacity to evoke affective and caregiving responses (Bastian et al., 2012; Bratanova et al., 2012; Caviola et al., 2019). From an evolutionary perspective, caregiving systems are more readily activated by cues associated with vulnerability, familiarity, or neotenous features. Consequently, animals such as companion species or mammals with human like expressive features may elicit stronger compassionate responses than animals that are perceptually or phylogenetically more distant, such as fish, insects, or many invertebrates.

These considerations suggest that compassion for animals may be more accurately conceptualized as a differentiated or profile-based construct rather than a single, uniform dimension. Individuals may exhibit distinct patterns of concern across animal categories, for example showing high compassion toward companion animals but lower concern for farmed animals or less familiar taxa. Such patterns are consistent with evidence on moral compartmentalization and phyloempathic hierarchies, as well as with evolutionary accounts emphasizing the role of familiarity, perceived similarity, and affective salience in eliciting caregiving responses. From a measurement perspective, this raises important questions regarding the interpretation of existing instruments, which typically assess generalized compassion toward animals without distinguishing between categories. Elevated scores may therefore reflect selective rather than uniformly distributed compassion. Future research would benefit from incorporating category-specific assessments or person-centered analytic approaches, such as latent profile analysis, to better capture heterogeneity in compassion across species.

5 Evidence from research on compassion for animals

Although compassion for self and compassion for other humans have been extensively examined over the past two decades, compassion directed toward nonhuman animals has received comparatively limited empirical attention within Western psychological science. One important reason for this neglect lies in long-standing cultural assumptions that position humans as fundamentally distinct from and superior to other animals. In addition, until the development and validation of the Compassion Questionnaire for Animals (Khoury and Vergara, 2024) and its abbreviated version, the CQA-18 (Khoury and Vergara, 2025), no validated measure specifically assessing compassion toward animals was available, thereby constraining systematic empirical investigation. Western philosophical and scientific traditions have historically emphasized human exceptionalism, framing humans as categorically different from other animals in ethical, cognitive, and emotional terms (Plumwood, 2002; Rose, 2011). This position has been progressively challenged by evolutionary theory and comparative research. Darwin’s assertion that there is no fundamental psychological discontinuity between humans and other animals (Darwin, 1872) has since been supported by a substantial body of evidence demonstrating that many animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing emotions, forming social bonds, and suffering (Bekoff and Pierce, 2017; Low et al., 2012; Goodall, 1998).

Despite these advances, recognition of animal sentience has not translated into consistent ethical concern or compassionate behavior. Even animals whose emotional and cognitive complexity is well established, including mammals, birds, and cephalopods, are routinely treated as instruments for human use (Midgley, 1985). This discrepancy highlights a central paradox in human animal relations, namely that scientific acknowledgment of animal minds coexists with practices that systematically discount animal suffering. Compassion offers a framework for addressing this paradox by shifting attention from categorical distinctions between species toward the lived experience and vulnerability of individual beings. By definition, compassion involves sensitivity to suffering combined with a motivation to alleviate it, regardless of the identity of the sufferer (Wallach et al., 2020). Extending compassion to animals therefore directly challenges human centered moral hierarchies and aligns with ethical principles of reciprocity that are found across cultures (Gensler, 2013; Küng and Kuschel, 1993).

In the absence of a clear conceptualization and operationalization of compassion for animals, early empirical work drew primarily on the study of empathy as a proxy for understanding animal directed responses. Initial research therefore relied largely on self-report measures of trait empathy toward animals, often adapted from instruments originally developed to assess empathy toward humans. Findings from this line of work indicate that empathy toward animals varies according to individual differences and ecological context, underscoring both its dispositional and situational variability (Figueredo et al., 2022). In parallel, experimental studies have complemented these approaches by examining physiological and behavioral responses to the suffering of both humans and nonhuman animals, providing converging evidence on how affective and regulatory processes are engaged across targets. In a seminal study, Rae Westbury and Neumann (2008) assessed both physiological and subjective empathic reactions to video clips depicting the victimization of humans and animals. Participants exhibited the strongest empathic responses toward human targets, reduced responses toward other mammals, and the weakest responses toward nonmammalian species. Notably, empathic responses to human and animal suffering were consistently correlated, suggesting the involvement of partially shared underlying mechanisms across species targets.

Complementing these findings, more recent work has incorporated objective behavioral measures of empathic engagement. For example, Ly and Weary (2021) demonstrated that human facial expressions systematically vary when observing farm animals in pain, providing quantifiable evidence of affective resonance with nonhuman targets beyond self-report measures. Together, these studies support the view that empathy toward animals is both measurable and partially continuous with empathy toward humans, while also revealing gradations in response across species.

These findings are consistent with survey studies showing modest but reliable associations between empathy for humans and empathy for animals (Angantyr et al., 2011; Taylor and Signal, 2005). In addition, associations were also found between cruelty to animals and aggressive/violent behaviors towards humans (e.g., Lucia and Killias, 2011). At the same time, evidence indicates that these forms of empathy are not interchangeable. Early empirical work suggests that empathy toward humans and animals is related but not identical.

In a large sample study, Paul (2000) found only moderate correlations between empathy for humans and empathy for animals, indicating partial overlap rather than full equivalence. However, such findings do not establish that these forms of empathy constitute entirely distinct constructs, as the strength and nature of their association appear to depend on developmental, relational, and contextual factors. Differential predictors further support nuanced differentiation. Empathy for animals has been associated with pet ownership and childhood exposure to animals, whereas empathy for humans has been linked to having children in the household, pointing to distinct experiential foundations (Hawkins et al., 2017; Paul, 2000). Developmental evidence further suggests both continuity and divergence across targets, as empathy shows increasing differentiation from adolescence to adulthood while maintaining some cross target consistency (Gaspar and Esteves, 2022). In parallel, individual differences contribute to this variability, with personality traits such as narcissism shaping the relative orientation of empathy toward humans versus animals (Giacomin et al., 2023).

At the same time, converging findings indicate that the relationship between these domains is not purely direct but may be structured through mediating processes. Empathy toward animals has been shown to mediate the association between attitudes toward animals and empathy toward humans (Gu et al., 2024), as well as the relationship between pet attachment and prosocial attitudes toward humans (Faner et al., 2024). Relatedly, empathy also partially mediates the link between attitudes toward animal rights and human rights, suggesting shared moral foundations that extend across domains (Stone, 2023). These patterns are further supported by relational experiences, as pet attachment has been associated with empathy and compassionate responding toward both self and others (Bosacki et al., 2022), indicating overlapping developmental pathways.

Importantly, these associations extend beyond attitudes to observable behavior. Empathy toward animals has been linked to increased engagement in prosocial actions, such as willingness to rescue stray animals, through mechanisms involving both empathic concern and moral obligation (Lu et al., 2026). Nevertheless, empathic responding remains flexible and context sensitive. Empathic choices toward animals versus humans vary depending on situational demands and perceived costs, highlighting that empathy is dynamically allocated rather than uniformly distributed across targets (Cameron et al., 2022). Overall, findings remain mixed, with some studies identifying positive associations between moral concern or empathy across human and nonhuman targets, suggesting shared underlying processes (Signal and Taylor, 2007; Taylor and Signal, 2005), whereas others document contextual, individual, and motivational distinctions that support domain specific differentiation (Paul, 2000; Giacomin et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2024).

Neuroscientific research has added nuance to these findings by demonstrating both overlap and divergence in the neural processes underlying empathic responses to human and animal suffering. Functional imaging studies suggest that empathic responses to animals rely more strongly on affective processing, whereas empathy toward humans engages additional cognitive components related to perspective taking and theory of mind (Franklin et al., 2013; Lamm et al., 2010; Mathur et al., 2016). These distinctions are theoretically important for compassion research, as compassion involves not only emotional resonance but also regulatory and motivational processes that may differ depending on the target of concern.

More recent work has moved beyond empathy to directly examine compassion for animals as a multidimensional construct. Using newly developed measures, Khoury and Vergara (2024) demonstrated strong convergent validity between compassion for animals and nature relatedness, a finding that emerged consistently across correlational and cluster analytic approaches. This robust association suggests that compassion for animals is embedded within a broader orientation of connectedness to the natural world. The significance of this relationship is underscored by extensive evidence linking nature relatedness to psychological well-being and positive mental health outcomes (Capaldi et al., 2014; Dean et al., 2018; Nisbet et al., 2011; Ulrich, 1984, Ulrich, 2002; Ulrich et al., 1991), as well as to pro environmental attitudes and behaviors (Deville et al., 2021; Martin et al., 2020; Whitburn et al., 2020; Wilkie and Trotter, 2022). Given the well documented role of pro environmental behavior in mitigating climate related risks (Jakučionytė-Skodienė et al., 2020), compassion for animals may represent an important psychological leverage point for addressing ecological challenges.

At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that empathy or compassion toward animals, may also be associated with potential costs under certain conditions. Repeated or intense exposure to animal suffering, particularly in professional or caregiving contexts, may contribute to compassion fatigue, emotional exhaustion, or empathic distress (Cocker and Joss, 2016). Empirical evidence from animal care and veterinary settings further supports this view. Empathy toward animals has been shown to be closely linked to mental health outcomes, reflecting both its benefits and its potential emotional burden (Laura et al., 2024). Similarly, caring for animals has been associated with compassion fatigue, with identifiable risk and protective factors (Monaghan et al., 2024), and higher levels of empathy in veterinary professionals have been linked to burnout, although certain protective mechanisms may buffer these effects (Varela and Correia, 2023). Comparable patterns have also been observed in specialized caregiving contexts, with evidence of compassion fatigue among chimpanzee caregivers, underscoring the emotional costs of sustained engagement with animal suffering (Jensvold, 2022).

Contemporary models emphasize that such outcomes are more closely related to unregulated empathic distress and insufficient emotion regulation rather than to compassion itself, which is generally associated with adaptive emotional functioning (Singer and Klimecki, 2014; Gilbert, 2014). From this perspective, cultivating compassion alongside regulatory capacities may be essential to prevent adverse outcomes and sustain engagement with animal related suffering over time.

Further analyses by Khoury and Vergara (2024) examined the relationship between compassion for animals and compassion for other humans across multiple measures, including compassion scales, empathy related skills, and indicators of nonjudgmental awareness and acceptance of others. Results revealed stable but modest associations across these domains, suggesting that capacities involved in human directed compassion may partially generalize to animal directed compassion. At the same time, the persistence of domain specific variance supports the view that compassion for animals is not reducible to compassion for humans, echoing earlier conclusions drawn in the empathy literature (Paul, 2000; Pooley, 2022).

Emotional factors also appear to play a role in shaping compassion for animals. Khoury and Vergara (2026) found that empathy for humans and anxiety jointly predicted specific dimensions of compassion for animals, particularly the dimension reflecting connection to animal suffering. Higher anxiety was associated with greater compassionate connection to animals’ suffering, a pattern consistent with prior findings linking anxiety to heightened empathic sensitivity toward human distress (Nair et al., 2024). These results suggest that emotional vulnerability may, under certain conditions, amplify sensitivity to suffering across species boundaries.

Personality research further supports the integration of compassion for animals within broader dispositional patterns. Individuals higher in communion or agreeableness and openness to experience tend to report higher levels of compassion for animals, indicating that personality traits associated with relational orientation and cognitive flexibility extend beyond human social contexts to human animal relations (Hopwood et al., 2023).

Importantly, compassion for animals appears to function synergistically with compassion for self and other humans. In a large-scale profile analysis, individuals high in compassion across all three domains exhibited the most adaptive psychological, interpersonal, and well-being outcomes (Khoury and Vergara, revised and resubmitted). This group showed stronger and more consistent associations between emotion regulation capacities and psychological symptoms, a pattern well supported by existing meta-analytic evidence linking emotion regulation to mental health (Aldao et al., 2010; Boemo et al., 2022; Joormann and Stanton, 2016; Kraiss et al., 2020). These findings carry important applied implications, suggesting that interventions should cultivate compassion in an integrative manner rather than focusing exclusively on a single target. Programs such as Embodied and Embedded Mindfulness and Compassion Training (EEMCT) explicitly adopt this integrative approach by targeting embodied mindfulness (Khoury, 2025, Khoury et al., 2019), interpersonal mindfulness (Khoury, 2018; Khoury et al., 2020) and compassion for self, other humans, and animals (Khoury, 2019; Khoury and Dionne, 2020), and nature within a unified framework (Embodied and Embedded Mindfulness and Compassion Framework, EEMCF; Khoury et al., 2025; Khoury, 2025).

Longitudinal findings suggest that compassion, whether directed toward the self, other humans, or animals, tends to remain relatively stable or show slight declines over time in the absence of sustained practice (Lee et al., 2021; Wong et al., 2025). Even individuals with initially high levels of compassion may exhibit reductions in its behavioral expression, highlighting the importance of ongoing cultivation through deliberate engagement. Converging evidence also points to the behavioral relevance of related constructs such as empathy toward animals, which appears to be associated with caregiving decisions. For instance, individuals who have relinquished a pet report lower levels of empathy toward animals, and to a lesser extent toward humans, compared to those who have adopted a pet, suggesting that empathic dispositions are reflected in concrete caregiving practices (Cardoso et al., 2022).

Finally, research on empathy and compassion in nonhuman animals provides a compelling complementary perspective. Reviews of comparative research document evidence of empathic concern and perspective taking in a wide range of species, including great apes, cetaceans, corvids, and rodents (Pérez-Manrique and Gomila, 2018; Young et al., 2018). Experimental studies demonstrate that animals such as rats will forego rewards to assist distressed conspecifics, particularly when they have themselves experienced similar distress (Sato et al., 2015). These findings challenge anthropocentric assumptions about compassion and reinforce the view that empathy related capacities are deeply rooted in evolutionary processes.

Taken together, the empirical literature supports compassion for animals as a psychologically meaningful, multidimensional construct that is related to but distinct from compassion for humans. It is shaped by personality, emotional processes, relational experiences, and broader orientations toward nature, and it appears to play a role in both individual well-being and ethical engagement with the nonhuman world.

6 Animals as compassionate beings

Comparative and personality research provides converging evidence that empathic and compassionate capacities are not exclusive to humans and are meaningfully expressed across species and individual differences. A comprehensive review by Pérez-Manrique and Gomila (2018) synthesized evidence on sympathetic concern and empathic perspective taking in nonhuman animals, with a particular emphasis on higher order forms of cognitive empathy. Rather than inferring motivation, the authors adopted a conservative approach by examining observable behavioral and physiological responses displayed by animals when exposed to the distress of conspecifics. Across a wide range of rigorously selected studies, they identified clear evidence of empathic responding in diverse species, including great apes, monkeys, dolphins, whales, corvids, voles, and rats. These findings challenge anthropocentric assumptions about empathy and suggest that sensitivity to the suffering of others is deeply rooted in evolutionary processes. Consistent with this, more recent empirical work has documented a broad range of prosocial and caregiving behaviors across species, including consolation, helping, and sensitivity to distress, observed in primates, rodents, and other social mammals (Burkett et al., 2016; De Waal and Preston, 2017; Sato et al., 2015), further supporting the view that affective resonance and caregiving motivations are evolutionarily conserved.

Among the most compelling examples is experimental work demonstrating helping behavior in rodents. In these studies, rats were observed to forego immediate rewards, such as food treats, in order to rescue a trapped conspecific from an aversive situation. Notably, helping behavior was amplified when the assisting rats had previously experienced the same distressing condition, indicating that shared experience enhanced empathic responsiveness (Sato et al., 2015). Such findings provide strong support for the presence of experiential and affective components of empathy in nonhuman animals and underscore the continuity of empathic processes across species. Building on these observations, more recent theoretical developments have refined distinctions between basic empathic processes and more complex forms of compassion involving motivational and regulatory components (Pérez-Manrique and Gomila, 2018; Mendl et al., 2010). Although caution is warranted in attributing higher order constructs such as compassion to nonhuman animals, the accumulation of evidence suggests that foundational elements of compassion, including sensitivity to suffering and prosocial responding, are present across species, providing an evolutionary grounding for compassion as an extended caregiving system.

In line with a Darwinian perspective emphasizing continuity between humans and other animals, complementary evidence from personality research further supports the relevance of compassion toward animals as a stable psychological disposition. Studies indicate that individuals higher in communal or agreeable orientations, as well as those higher in openness to experience, consistently report greater levels of compassion for animals (Hopwood et al., 2023). These associations suggest that personality traits related to relational sensitivity, cooperation, and openness to novelty extend beyond exclusively human social contexts and meaningfully shape how individuals perceive, value, and respond to nonhuman animals. Taken together, findings from comparative cognition, affective science, and personality psychology reinforce the view that compassion for animals reflects both evolutionary continuity and enduring individual differences, positioning it as a meaningful and integrative component of ethical orientation and social functioning.

7 Practices for cultivating compassion for animals

Accumulating evidence suggests that perceived interconnectedness with animals and the natural world is not fixed, but can be meaningfully strengthened through targeted psychological and educational approaches (Feral, 1998; Schultz, 2000). This malleability provides a strong rationale for developing interventions that foster compassion for animals by engaging its cognitive, affective, behavioral, and relational dimensions. Drawing on insights from environmental education, mindfulness and compassion-based training, animal assisted programs, and nature-based practices, this section outlines key strategies for cultivating compassion for animals across the lifespan.

At the same time, these approaches must be considered in light of an important tension regarding the limits of compassion cultivation. Although such interventions assume that compassion can be intentionally expanded, the underlying affective system remains shaped by evolutionarily grounded biases related to familiarity, perceived similarity, and affective salience. Engaging this tension more directly highlights that compassion cultivation may be more effective in some contexts than others, and may encounter constraints when extending concern beyond familiar or salient targets. This perspective underscores the need to consider both the potential and the limits of cultivation processes when designing and evaluating interventions aimed at broadening compassion toward animals.

7.1 Cultivating compassionate awareness and sensitivity toward animals

The affective and cognitive foundations of compassion for animals involve learning to perceive animals as sentient beings and to respond emotionally to their vulnerability and suffering. Educational approaches have long played a central role in this process. Environmental and humane education programs promote ethical concern and empathic understanding by increasing knowledge about animal needs, capacities, and ecological roles, while also fostering emotional engagement with animal lives (Barrable, 2019; Hungerford and Volk, 1990; Aaltola, 2022).

Importantly, emerging empirical work highlights that the way animals are cognitively represented plays a critical role in eliciting compassion. For instance, perceiving animals as identifiable individuals, rather than abstract categories, increases concern and advocacy, particularly in the case of farm animals and wildlife (Cohen Ben-Arye and Halali, 2024; Smith et al., 2024). Similarly, attributing mental capacities to animals is associated with greater moral concern and reduced willingness to harm them, underscoring the role of anthropomorphization in shaping moral status (Potocka and Bielecki, 2023).

Developmentally adapted pedagogical strategies further support these processes. Activities such as role-playing responses to animal distress, storytelling through picture books, classroom discussions of animal welfare, and supervised encounters with animals have been shown to foster kindness and empathy in children and adolescents (Aguirre and Orihuela, 2014, Jalongo, 2014). These principles extend into adulthood through experiential learning, reflective practices, and sustained engagement with environmental issues, all of which contribute to shaping how animals are perceived and, consequently, how compassion toward them is expressed.

Mindfulness and meditation practices offer complementary pathways for cultivating compassionate awareness toward animals. These practices encourage present-centered attention and nonjudgmental awareness, which can be intentionally directed toward animals and their experiences. For individuals living with companion animals, meditation practices may incorporate sensory anchors such as a pet’s breathing, warmth, or texture, or structured moments of sustained, attentive affection that promote emotional attunement (Oliva and Green, 2021). Loving-kindness meditation can also be adapted to include animals as explicit recipients of compassionate intention, alternating between self-focused phrases, wishes for a loved animal, and broader aspirations for collective safety and well-being (Neff and Germer, 2018). In applied contexts, such adaptations have been used successfully, such as mindfulness-based practices conducted in the presence of farm animals that incorporate compassionate phrases oriented toward animal health and freedom from pain (Schramm et al., 2022).

Body-based mindfulness practices may further enhance compassionate awareness by integrating gentle physical contact, when appropriate and ethical, such as holding or touching an animal while maintaining full sensory awareness (Kogan and Bussolari, 2021; Schramm et al., 2022). Outdoor and walking meditations can similarly be oriented toward animals by inviting participants to attend to animal sounds, movements, and patterns of interaction within their environment, or to remain attentively connected to a companion animal during shared movement. Together, these practices support the development of compassionate perception by grounding awareness in embodied, relational experience.

7.2 Fostering compassionate action and intentional care

Beyond awareness and emotional resonance, compassion for animals also involves a motivational and behavioral commitment to act in ways that reduce harm and promote well-being. Research indicates that compassion related behaviors can be strengthened by increasing motivation, clarifying values, and supporting concrete action aligned with ethical concern (Khoury and Vergara, 2024). Environmental education plays a critical role in this process by equipping individuals with the skills needed to identify environmental problems, understand animal welfare issues, and engage in responsible and informed action (Barrable, 2019; Hungerford and Volk, 1990).

Animal assisted programs provide a particularly direct context for cultivating compassionate behavior. These programs span therapeutic, educational, and recreational settings and involve structured interactions with animals such as dogs, cats, horses, birds, dolphins, and farm animals (Fine, 2019; Koukourikos et al., 2019). Importantly, participation in such programs carries ethical responsibilities toward the animals involved. Ensuring appropriate care, minimizing stress, and safeguarding animal welfare are integral components of compassionate action in these contexts (Macnamara et al., 2019; Yamamoto and Hart, 2019). Through these responsibilities, individuals learn that compassion is expressed not only through emotional connection but also through sustained, respectful caregiving.

Compassionate action may also extend beyond direct interaction with animals to include broader forms of responsible citizenship and ethical engagement. These actions may involve support for animal welfare policies, participation in conservation efforts, and changes in consumption patterns that reduce harm to animals and ecosystems. In this context, dietary choices such as vegetarianism and veganism have received increasing attention as behavioral expressions of compassion toward animals. Emerging research suggests that veganism, in particular, is often motivated by concern for animal suffering, moral values, and ecological considerations, and is associated with reduced speciesism and expanded moral concern (Rosenfeld and Burrow, 2017; Janssen et al., 2016).

These forms of compassionate action illustrate that compassion toward animals can operate not only at the interpersonal level but also at broader societal and ecological levels, reflecting an integration of affective concern, moral reasoning, and behavior. Such patterns align with frameworks emphasizing moral expansiveness and the extension of care beyond immediate social groups to include nonhuman animals and the natural environment.

7.3 Strengthening relational connectedness and shared vulnerability

Underlying both compassionate awareness and action is a relational dimension characterized by a sense of connectedness with animals and recognition of shared vulnerability to suffering. Educational, contemplative, and animal assisted approaches commonly emphasize this relational aspect by highlighting common biological needs, emotional capacities, and interdependence between humans and animals (Barrable, 2019; Hungerford and Volk, 1990). By explicitly acknowledging suffering as a shared condition rather than a species specific attribute, these approaches foster a relational stance that supports sustained compassion (Khoury and Vergara, 2024).

Nature relatedness represents an important bridge between compassion for animals and broader ecological engagement. Defined as the affective, cognitive, and experiential connection individuals feel with the natural world, nature relatedness is closely intertwined with concern for animals, as animals inhabit and embody natural ecosystems (Nisbet et al., 2009). Nature based practices can therefore serve as powerful contexts for cultivating compassion. Guided outdoor activities such as “safari walks” encourage participants, particularly children, to attentively observe animals, plants, and environmental elements, thereby deepening connection and moral concern through direct sensory engagement (Willard, 2014; Sherman, 2020). Visualization practices, including forest-based imagery in which individuals imagine themselves as part of a living ecosystem, further reinforce a sense of unity and shared existence with nonhuman life (Jo et al., 2024).

7.4 Empirical support and emerging modalities

Although many of the practices described are embedded within broader intervention programs, existing research provides converging evidence for their beneficial effects. Environmental knowledge, meditation experience, and compassion for animals have been associated with stronger connectedness to animals and nature, more positive attitudes toward animal welfare, and greater endorsement of pro environmental values and behaviors (Apostol et al., 2013; Nisbet et al., 2009; Olivos et al., 2013; Pamela et al., 2016; Powell, 2010; Restall and Conrad, 2015). Animal assisted interventions and mindfulness-based approaches have also been linked to improved treatment engagement, reductions in psychological distress, enhanced social functioning, increased enjoyment of physical activity, and improved well-being for both humans and animals involved (Oliva and Green, 2021). In this context, emerging evidence suggests that compassion based interventions may also contribute to broader shifts in moral concern, as even brief compassion focused training has been shown to increase moral expansiveness, indicating a potential extension of concern toward a wider range of beings, including animals (Kirby et al., 2024).

Emerging technologies offer additional avenues for cultivating compassion for animals, particularly for individuals with limited access to natural environments. Virtual reality based nature interventions provide immersive audiovisual experiences of diverse natural settings and have been shown to reduce stress, enhance mindfulness, and promote psychological restoration (Baños et al., 2012; Bruun-Pedersen et al., 2014; Reynolds et al., 2018; Sadowski and Khoury, 2022). Such approaches may be especially valuable for older adults, individuals with mobility limitations, or patients in medical recovery contexts, offering alternative pathways to experience connection with animals and nature (Benchimol-Elkaim et al., 2024; Ludden et al., 2019).

Taken together, these practices illustrate that compassion for animals can be intentionally cultivated through integrated approaches that engage awareness, behavior, and relational connection. Evaluating the effectiveness of these strategies within comprehensive frameworks such as the Embodied and Embedded Mindfulness and Compassion Framework will be essential for building a robust evidence base and advancing ethical, psychological, and ecological well-being.

8 Animal assisted therapy and compassionate human–animal partnerships

Although this paper primarily examines how humans cultivate compassion toward animals, considering the reciprocal dimension, namely how animals provide support to humans, offers a complementary perspective on human animal relationships and may strengthen concern for animal welfare.

Animal assisted interventions have been associated with psychological and physiological benefits, including reductions in stress, anxiety, and loneliness, as well as improvements in social functioning and overall well-being (Beetz et al., 2012; Ein et al., 2018). However, these effects are often attributed broadly to human animal interaction, without clearly distinguishing the underlying mechanisms. In this context, it is important to assess the extent to which such benefits are specifically related to compassion, as experienced by humans in relation to animals, rather than to more general processes.

While compassion involves sensitivity to suffering combined with a motivation to alleviate it, many observed benefits may instead arise from affiliative bonding, perceived nonjudgmental presence, or processes of emotional and physiological co-regulation, which can reduce stress, anxiety and enhance well-being. These mechanisms can promote comfort and positive affect without necessarily engaging with suffering. Building on this distinction between compassion specific processes and broader interactional mechanisms, it becomes important to examine how the documented benefits of animal assisted interventions are typically explained at a mechanistic level.

One of the most consistently documented effects of animal assisted therapy is a reduction in stress, anxiety and physiological arousal. Meta-analytic evidence indicates small to moderate decreases in state anxiety, along with reductions in physiological stress markers such as heart rate and cortisol levels during or immediately following sessions involving animals (Beetz et al., 2012; Ein et al., 2018). These effects are commonly interpreted through biobehavioral mechanisms, including activation of affiliative neurobiological systems such as oxytocin release, increased perceptions of safety, and attentional redirection away from threat related cues. The presence of an animal may thus facilitate a regulatory context that supports downregulation of stress responses. Notably, these affective and neurobiological processes overlap with mechanisms implicated in compassion, particularly those related to affiliative motivation, safeness, and care based responding, suggesting that some of the observed benefits may be partially mediated by the activation of compassion related states, although this remains to be empirically clarified (Gilbert, 2014; Goetz et al., 2010; Rockliff et al., 2008).

Evidence for reductions in depressive symptoms is more variable but nonetheless suggestive. Systematic reviews report modest improvements in depressive affect among older adults, individuals with chronic mental health conditions, and patients in medical or institutional settings (Souter and Miller, 2007). However, these effects tend to be small and inconsistent, largely due to variability in intervention duration, therapeutic goals, and outcome measures. This variability underscores the need for greater standardization and conceptual clarity in future studies.

Improvements in social and socioemotional functioning represent one of the strongest and most reliable outcome domains in animal assisted therapy research. Reviews focusing on children with autism spectrum conditions and adults with psychiatric disorders consistently report increases in social initiation, verbal communication, emotional expressiveness, and reciprocal interaction when animals are integrated into therapeutic activities (Becker et al., 2017; O’Haire, 2013). These benefits are often attributed to the unique social affordances of animals, which may reduce perceived social threat, bypass complex social expectations, and enhance motivation for engagement. Animals may thus function as social catalysts, facilitating interpersonal interaction in contexts that might otherwise feel overwhelming.

Findings related to trauma and post-traumatic stress are promising but remain heterogeneous. Reviews of interventions involving service dogs and therapy dogs suggest potential reductions in PTSD symptoms, including emotional numbing and hyperarousal, alongside improvements in emotion regulation and daily functioning (O'Haire et al., 2015; O'Haire and Rodriguez, 2018). Nonetheless, many studies in this area are limited by the absence of rigorous control conditions and reliance on observational designs. While physiological calming and enhanced regulation are frequently proposed as underlying mechanisms, further controlled research is required to clarify causal pathways.

Taken together, these findings suggest that interaction with animals may contribute to reductions in hypervigilance and perceived social threat while enhancing a sense of safety and affiliative connection. These processes closely align with mechanisms associated with compassion, particularly the cultivation of safeness, care oriented motivation, and prosocial engagement. Empirical work within compassion focused and affiliative regulation frameworks indicates that increased feelings of safeness and social connectedness are central to the activation of compassionate states and the regulation of threat-based responses (Gilbert, 2014; Rockliff et al., 2008; Kirschner et al., 2019). This convergence raises the possibility that some of the social and emotional benefits observed in animal assisted contexts may be supported, at least in part, by compassion-related processes, although this remains to be directly tested.

In medical and rehabilitation settings, animal assisted therapy has been associated with improvements in perceived well-being, pain management, and engagement in physical or motor rehabilitation. Meta analytic findings indicate small but meaningful reductions in pain and increases in motivation among pediatric and geriatric patients participating in animal assisted interventions (Lundqvist et al., 2017; Marcus et al., 2012). These effects may be particularly valuable in contexts where adherence and engagement pose significant challenges.

Despite these encouraging findings, methodological limitations remain a central concern across the literature. Reviews consistently highlight issues such as small sample sizes, inadequate comparison conditions, inconsistent reporting of intervention components, variability in animal species and training, and limited long term follow up. Consequently, there have been repeated calls for clearer distinctions between animal assisted therapy and less structured animal assisted activities, the development of standardized protocols, and greater attention to potential mediators and moderators of treatment effects.

In addition, the mechanisms underlying these positive outcomes remain insufficiently examined. In particular, it is unclear whether increases in perceived safety, bonding, and affiliative connection between humans and animals, processes that are central to compassion toward the self and others, including animals, contribute to these effects. Future research should clarify these mechanisms to determine whether animal assisted interventions activate compassion related processes and how these processes relate to the effectiveness of these interventions.

Importantly, the growing interest in animal assisted therapy also raises ethical considerations regarding the role and welfare of animals involved. Engaging animals in therapeutic contexts requires more than demonstrating human benefit; it necessitates an understanding of animals’ needs, capacities, and limits. Ethical practice entails viewing animals as relational partners rather than as tools, subjects, or passive instruments of intervention. This perspective aligns with compassion focused frameworks that emphasize mutual respect, protection from harm, and recognition of animals as sentient beings with their own well-being at stake. Advancing animal assisted therapy therefore depends not only on methodological rigor, but also on a principled commitment to compassionate and ethically grounded human–animal partnerships.

9 Toward an integrated ethic of compassionate coexistence

The persistent lack of compassion for animal suffering, combined with the ongoing degradation of natural habitats, poses significant risks not only to animal welfare and biodiversity but also to human wellbeing. Increasing evidence suggests that environmental disruption and exploitative human animal relationships contribute to the emergence of zoonotic diseases, as illustrated by COVID 19 and other cross species transmissions (Allen et al., 2017; Jones et al., 2008; Khoury, 2020). Although these findings do not establish a direct causal role for compassion, they underscore the broader consequences of how humans relate to animals and ecosystems, highlighting the interdependence of human, animal, and environmental health.

These dynamics invite a critical reexamination of prevailing moral frameworks. From early socialization, individuals are often encouraged to form affectionate bonds with certain animals, such as dogs or cats, while simultaneously disregarding the suffering and intrinsic value of others, including farmed animals or wildlife. This selective inclusion within the moral circle reflects a deep inconsistency that normalizes the exclusion of many animals from ethical concern and legitimizes their instrumental use. Philosophical accounts have long argued that moral consideration may extend beyond humans on the basis of sentience, the capacity to suffer, or the possession of interests (Nussbaum, 2007; Singer, 2004). More recent work further suggests that the boundaries of moral concern can expand over time, shaped by cultural, cognitive, and emotional factors (Crimston et al., 2016; Singer, 2011).

Within this broader framework, compassion can be understood as a key psychological mechanism supporting the expansion of moral concern, while also remaining shaped by the same evolutionary and sociocultural biases that constrain moral inclusion. This dual role highlights both the potential and the limits of compassion as a guiding principle. Rather than constituting a uniform or fixed disposition, compassion for animals appears as a context dependent and variably expressed phenomenon, structured by evolutionary predispositions, regulatory capacities, and sociocultural influences.

This perspective carries important implications for how compassion for animals is conceptualized and studied. Instead of assuming a uniform extension of concern across species, future research should more explicitly examine how compassion is distributed across animal categories and consider whether distinct profiles of concern better capture individual differences. Such approaches may improve the precision of measurement, refine the interpretation of existing findings, and inform more targeted interventions by identifying which forms of compassion are more readily cultivated and which may require additional cognitive, emotional, or contextual support.

Taken together, these considerations suggest that compassion for animals is not a uniform or fixed disposition, but a context dependent and variably expressed phenomenon shaped by evolutionary predispositions, regulatory capacities, and sociocultural influences. As highlighted in the preceding discussion, patterns of moral inclusion and exclusion, along with the broader consequences of human relationships with animals and ecosystems, underscore both the importance and the limits of compassion as a guiding principle. While compassion can be cultivated and extended, it is unlikely to operate as a fully impartial response. Integrating insights from psychology, evolutionary theory, and moral philosophy therefore allows for a more nuanced understanding of how compassion develops, where it is most readily expressed, and where it may encounter constraints.

Within this perspective, cultivating a more compassionate world requires greater alignment between values and practices, such that compassion is not only endorsed but enacted in everyday relationships with other forms of life. This entails moving beyond anthropocentric frameworks that restrict moral concern to select species, and toward a more relational understanding of life as interconnected and shared. Recognizing nonhuman animals as co-inhabitants of a common ecological system situates compassion within a broader context of interdependence. Accordingly, supporting the flourishing of humans, animals, and ecosystems is not only an ethical consideration but also a pragmatic acknowledgment of mutual dependence. Advancing this orientation calls for an expanded moral imagination that extends concern across species boundaries, while remaining attentive to the psychological and structural conditions that shape how such concern is expressed and sustained.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. ChatGPT 5.0 was used to correct the text.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Janusz Strychalski, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland

Reviewed by: Constança Carvalho, ISPA - Instituto Universitário de Ciências Psicológicas, Sociais e da Vida, Portugal

Liv Baker, PAN Works, United States