I thank the authors for a responsive revision and clear detailed response letter. The majority of my concerns have been addressed.

I appreciate the authors' clarification of the theoretical definition and conceptual distinction between comforting and compassion. I further appreciate the reduced claims of novelty and the clearer situation of the findings within the existing literature. That said, I am still struggling, to be convinced that this method advances our knowledge of compassion in a way that is distinct from what we already know about comfort. Given comfort is a form of compassion, and the tasks described are so close to existing comforting tasks (i.e., responding to an experimenter's emotional distress) I still struggle to see how this is a novel contribution/fits with the existing literature. I continue to have concerns that the authors are capitalizing on the usage of a broader conceptual term (i.e., compassion) to describe a well-studied phenomena (i.e., comfort) and then using that ambiguity to leverage novelty. It would be helpful to see these findings situated in the behavioral comforting literature, of which there is much, in order to better assess the contributions. Additionally (or alternatively), it would be helpful to see a task that was distinctly separate from standard comforting tasks (i.e., responding to anger or anxiety) that would clearly differentiate between the two constructs and demonstrate their conceptual/functional differences.

I appreciate the authors’ revised analyses. I believe that they are more appropriate for the data, and the fact that the substantive results did not change is nice evidence in support of the robustness of the observed effects. The updated figures are informative, thank you.