How belief in karma shapes whom we choose to help

Belief in karma can lead people to justify the misfortune of others as deserved, but it can also inspire a greater willingness to give away money to people in need. New research indicates that thinking about karmic rewards primarily increases generosity when the person receiving help is viewed as a blameless victim of circumstance. These findings were published in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Karma is a causal concept originating in Asian religious traditions. It suggests that cosmic forces ensure good behavior is eventually rewarded and bad behavior is punished. This principle exists as a foundational belief in Hinduism and Buddhism. It also appears in Western cultures among spiritually minded individuals who may not follow a specific organized religion.

Psychology researcher Cindel J. M. White from York University led a group of investigators to explore how these cosmological principles impact everyday social choices. Coauthor Aiyana K. Willard from Brunel University London worked with White to test two competing views of how karma influences human interaction.

One view suggests karma acts as a retrospective explanation for life events. If someone experiences financial hardship or distress, observers might assume the person did something prior to deserve it. This reasoning can result in assigning blame to victims of misfortune. It can also foster a reluctance to offer help, because an observer might feel the victim is simply receiving their cosmic penalty.

An alternative view sees karma as a prospective motivator. People might do good deeds, like giving to charity or assisting a stranger, to earn positive karmic merit for their own future. In this framework, the desire for a positive destiny encourages prosocial behavior.

Free daily newsletter

White and Willard wanted to see if these two mindsets interact in real time. They designed a research program to test how the specific circumstances of a person in need might influence the karmic calculations of a potential donor.

The researchers conducted three cross-cultural experiments involving residents of the United States, India, and Singapore. The samples included Hindu participants in India, Buddhist participants in Singapore, and a religiously diverse general population in the United States. The combined effort resulted in a large study encompassing more than 6,000 individuals.

In the first experiment, participants answered questions measuring their baseline belief in karma. They also responded to statements to gauge their specific attitudes toward social inequality.

The investigators found that a strong, existing belief in karma positively correlated with a tendency to view social hierarchies as legitimate. Participants who believed in karma often endorsed the idea that some social groups should hold more power than others. They also frequently agreed with the idea that sheer hard work guarantees ultimate success, a mindset often called the Protestant work ethic. By extension, these individuals were more inclined to see economic inequality as the fair outcome of individual efforts rather than a systemic societal flaw.

At the same time, this initial test evaluated whether prompting people to think actively about karma changed their willingness to share a hypothetical pool of 100 dollars. Participants read randomized prompts that either asked them to write about karmic forces or contained neutral instructions.

People who were instructed to frame their decisions around karma were generally more willing to share the money with a struggling stranger or a local religious group. This dual finding highlighted a distinct tension in human behavior. Karma seemed to justify wide societal inequality while simultaneously encouraging individual charitable giving.

To untangle this contradiction, the team designed a second experiment. They asked participants to split hypothetical bonus money with different types of struggling strangers.

The researchers manipulated the primary reasons for the recipient’s financial need in the hypothetical profiles. Some recipients caused their own problems through poor work habits or irresponsible personal behavior. This condition represented a situation where the person was personally at fault for their current circumstances.

Other recipients lost their jobs because of unpredictable company layoffs or sudden acute illnesses. This condition represented external factors completely outside the targeted person’s control. A third group of profiles featured control recipients who were not experiencing any acute financial trouble.

Participants completed initial rounds of giving decisions to form a baseline. Then, before making a second round of decisions, participants received specific instructions to base their next choices explicitly on the law of karma.

The results showed that participants across all three countries naturally preferred to give more money to people whose problems were caused by external forces. They felt these specific individuals were highly deserving of assistance.

Thinking actively about karma amplified this specific preference. The mental reminder to consider karma increased generosity specifically toward the blameless recipients. It did not elevate giving to people who caused their own financial problems.

After the money division task, participants reported their personal logic for how they distributed the cash. They indicated that they expected to earn the most karmic merit by giving to someone who suffered through no fault of their own. Giving to someone who was personally responsible for their misfortune offered less perceived spiritual reward.

The third experiment verified this setup by introducing real monetary stakes. Participants knew a lottery system would actually pay out cash bonuses based on the allocation choices they made during the survey. This helped ensure that respondents were taking the exercise seriously rather than simply acting out a thought experiment.

The researchers also split the experimental karma instructions into two distinct angles. Some participants were asked to think intensely about how their own personal actions affect their cosmic future. Others were told to consider how other people’s current situations are the direct result of their past behavior.

The findings mirrored the second experiment. In both experimental conditions, thinking about karma primarily increased monetary giving to people who were blameless victims of external circumstances. Generosity remained relatively flat for those who caused their own hardship. Even when specifically prompted to judge the past actions of others, participants still prioritized helping individuals broken by forces outside their control.

While the studies span three distinct cultures, the researchers acknowledge that the effect of simply thinking about karma on overall generosity was relatively modest. The experimental framing shifted monetary giving slightly, but regular social judgments about a recipient’s actual immediate need and basic deservingness remained the primary drivers of behavior.

The researchers also note that their specific scenarios only explored financial hardship tied to employment or everyday health troubles. Future investigations could examine whether karmic beliefs operate differently when natural disasters, devastating accidents, or other sudden crises cause the suffering.

Ultimately, the investigators conclude that belief in karma does not universally encourage strict victim blaming or blind charitable giving. Instead, the concept adapts to natural human biases regarding fairness. It motivates helping behavior when giving is viewed as socially righteous, offering believers a culturally endorsed pathway to secure their own prosperous future.

The study, “How Karma Harms and Helps Generosity Toward Those in Need,” was authored by Cindel J. M. White and Aiyana K. Willard.