Compassion fatigue, or “secondary stress”, is a condition characterized by a weakened compassion response when one is repeatedly exposed to the suffering of others. For example, an emergency room doctor may have compassion fatigue as a result of constantly bearing witness to traumatic and violent injuries – thus impeding their ability to feel compassion for future patients. While compassion fatigue is common among healthcare workers (to the point of being considered an occupational hazard in the field), it can affect anyone.
A recent research study from Harvard University and the University of Michigan discovered some interesting implications of compassion fatigue – mainly that the way an individual thinks about compassion can affect whether or not one experiences compassion fatigue.
The study defines two distinct views of compassion. In one view is the belief that compassion is in limited supply and that using it depletes your emotional resources. By this view, you can only show so much compassion before you require recovery. This is referred to as the “limited mindset”. On the other hand, the “limitless mindset” posited that compassion is a well that doesn’t go dry, and that feeling compassion can be emotionally energizing.
Compassion fatigue is an occupational hazard in the healthcare industry.
Photo credit: ER Productions Limited
Across four different studies, the researchers made multiple significant findings regarding these two views. Firstly, limited mindsets were correlated with higher levels of compassion fatigue and a reduced compassion response to images of people experiencing hardship or suffering. Additionally, participants with a limited mindset were more likely to experience compassion fatigue even months later, showing that the implications of these mindsets are stable over time.
Secondly, researchers found that compassion mindsets were alterable. In one study, they had participants listen to podcasts that supported either the limited- or limitless-compassion view. When participants were told that compassion was limited, they were more likely to ascribe to a limited-compassion mindset. On the other hand, when participants were told that compassion is limitless, they changed their view to a limitless-compassion mindset.
This study brings up multiple ethical considerations for scientists and science communicators. The researchers showed that not only does what we believe matter, but also that our beliefs may have long-term consequences. While the study showed that mindsets are stable over time and can affect one’s health, it also indicated that when exposed to the opinion of a supposed “reputable” source, participants were willing to change their view. In other words, science communication can have a very real impact on people’s lives and health. Therefore, it’s important for scientists to weigh the impact of their findings before positing it as an absolute fact. As the scientific body of work is always changing as we carry out more tests and learn new information, the tentative nature of these truths should be honestly communicated to the general public.
Featured Image Source: ZoomTeam
