Love has been a topic of great interest throughout the centuries; with this, aspects of the said concept have emerged, as is the case of the concept of compassionate love, also called altruistic love; inspired by the Buddhist and Eastern cultural approaches, where compassion is understood as a feeling of kindness and the desire to alleviate the suffering of others (^{Fehr & Sprecher, 2009}; ^{Perlman & Sánchez Aragón, 2009}). According to ^{Fehr et al. (2009)}, the characteristics that this type of love presents are born from some religious norms and doctrines. However, they are not directly related to any religion.

The term compassionate love emerged for the first time in a meeting held by the World Health Organization, where research groups sought to develop a tool to assess the quality of life in different cultures (^{Fehr et al., 2009}). As a result, some scientists joined forces in the creation and establishment of the term, concluding that compassionate love is defined as a feeling of love that focuses on the good of others in a disinterested and dedicated way, emphasizing care, appreciation, and respect for the receiver; therefore, this type of love promotes the most significant social good (^{Underwood, 2002}) and fosters the development and improvement of others (Fehr et al., 2014; ^{Virat et al., 2018}).

For their part, ^{Sprecher and Fehr (2005}) define compassionate love as a set of attitudes and behaviors focused on care, concern, tenderness, support, help, and understanding towards other people in the close social group such as friends and family, or distant, such as strangers and society in general. This type of love is often generated by a perception that the other person is in danger, which differentiates compassionate love from other types of love, such as passionate or romantic (^{Neto & Wilks, 2017}). Inherent in this love is a free choice on the part of the individual since he or she has the will to act with love and dedication, such as the need for the person to know and understand in advance the needs and feelings of the other in a responsive and helpful manner (^{Fehr et al., 2014}).

The model established by ^{Underwood (2002}, ²⁰⁰⁹) explains very well what was mentioned above since it specifies the antecedents, the motivational factors, and the consequences of compassionate love. The antecedents include cultural, social, situational, biological, personality, and upbringing history variables. For example, it is argued that a safe and nurturing environment is more likely to elicit compassionate love responses from a person. Likewise, another model component is the motivation that the person has when expressing compassionate love. Her motives must focus on the good of the other without seeking any contribution. Thus, the third component of the model, called the consequences, makes it possible to demonstrate the actions generated by compassionate love (^{Fehr et al., 2014}).

On the other hand, previous research has shown that compassionate love correlates with prosocial behaviors such as altruism, empathy, sympathy, social support, or volunteering (^{Sprecher et al., 2007}). In this sense, altruism and compassionate love are very similar; however, they differ in the sense that altruism performs works and actions in favor of others without receiving anything in return, but at no time does it show a feeling of love towards the person who benefited (^{Omani, 2011}). Likewise, empathy and compassionate love are also associated; however, the fundamental difference between these is that the first implies a feeling where it is possible to perceive or experience what the other person is feeling; while the second also includes the motivation to provide help (^{Sinclair et al., 2016}). That is, compassionate love is not only an emotional response but includes taking actions that alleviate the suffering of others (^{Fehr & Sprecher, 2013}; ^{Fehr et al., 2014}). Furthermore, there are differences between compassionate love and the concept of compassion, where the latter does not focus on actions to promote the growth of another person, nor does it necessarily require the level of commitment to others as compassionate love is evidenced (^{Fehr et al. al., 2014}; ^{Goetz et al., 2010}).

From all that has been mentioned, the need to measure this construct has become evident, so in 2002 Underwood evaluated it with only two items, which were taken from the Daily Spiritual Experience Scale carried out by ^{Underwood and Teresi (2002)}, that contained items such as: “I feel disinterested in others” and “I accept others even when they do things that I think are wrong”.

Subsequently, ^{Sprecher and Fehr (2010}) created a scale that sought to evaluate multiple elements within compassionate love, where the close social group (family and friends), the romantic bond (romantic partner), and strangers (society) were considered. In constructing the Compassionate Love Scale (CLS), these authors adapted some elements of existing measures: the contribution of ^{Underwood (2002}), the ^{Hendrick and Hendrick Love Attitudes Scale (1986}), and ^{Rubin's Scales of Love and Affection (1970}).

Finally, Neff and Karney's (2005 in ^{Fehr et al., 2014}) assessment of compassionate love in couples reflects a positive global conceptualization and an understanding of the particular strengths and weaknesses of the partner. In this instrument, the participants are asked to evaluate the instrument in terms of global qualities (e.g., being a good person) and their more specific characteristics and abilities (e.g., intelligence). However, in the approach of these authors, the scale evaluates more indirectly. It focuses specifically on the perceptions of the global and specific traits of the romantic partner and not on the variable in question.

Within the context of the couple, ^{Berscheid (2010}) states that in this type of bond, compassionate love is confirmed, along with passionate love, companionship, and attachment, which plays an essential role in predicting the satisfaction and stability of the dyadic relationship. However, while romantic love is driven by hormones, bodily reactions, and a high motivation to fulfill one's needs and desires, compassionate love is not always presented that way (^{Sprecher et al., 2007}); since it is based on a more mature awareness and understanding of the spouse's strengths and weaknesses, encompassing caring and altruistic attitudes that allows one to value and put the other's needs before one's own (^{Fehr et al., 2009}).

^{Neto (2012}) reveals that people who perform behaviors focused on compassionate love perceive more significant benefits and gains for themselves, such as higher self-esteem, positive morale, self-awareness, and spirituality, in addition to playing an essential role in predicting satisfaction and relational stability ^{(Neto & Wilks, 2017}). It should be noted that this will depend on the objectives, aspirations, and achievements that the person has at that precise moment. However, it is mentioned that the reception of love and its components generate feelings of happiness, satisfaction, and complacency (^{García, 2002}).

Based on all of the above and the lack of a measure of compassionate love in Mexico, this variable deserves to be the focus of study within the discipline of Social Psychology, and particularly in the area of couple relationships, since it has been demonstrated its value in the infrastructure of the couple, thereby providing the strengthening of the bond, allowing the expression of behaviors of maintenance, support, care, and mutual well-being, as well as generating reciprocity and commitment (^{Fehr & Sprecher, 2009}). For these reasons, the objective of this research was to design and validate a valid and reliable instrument that adequately integrates the dimensions of the construct of compassionate love in couple relationships.

Results

From the execution of each of the statistical analyses, it was observed that 33 of the 35 designed items met the criteria established by ^{Reyes-Lagunes and García y Barragán (2008}), where they were found within the bias range of -0.5 and 0.5 since it was considered that the variables were distributed in a usual way and that the extreme quartiles of each item presented statistically significant differences.

Subsequently, the reagents were analyzed using an EFA of principal components with orthogonal rotation (varimax type). Factor analysis yielded a KMO index = .981, Bartlett's Sphericity Test = 25239.795, df= 528, p= .000, and a total α = .973. Two factors were found with values greater than one, explaining 61.96 % of the variance and moderate to moderate-high Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficients. On the other hand, reliability analyses of Ʊ = .976 were carried out for the two factors thrown (Table 1).

Table 1: Exploratory factor analysis of the Compassionate Love Scale