![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/helpful-750x375.jpg)
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.
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.
This study is predicated on an erroneous definition or understanding of karma. At least from the Buddhist tradition. In Buddhism, karma (literally meaning “action”) is defined as intentional or volitional action driven by your thoughts, words, and physical deeds. It is not a system of cosmic reward and punishment or pre-determined fate, but rather a natural, impersonal law of psychological cause and effect. Buddhist teachings state that the material conditions of one’s birth are often the ripening result of past actions, particularly the presence or absence of generosity in previous lifetimes. However, the Buddha was very specific That ignorance about the laws of karma, ignorance about dependent origination, ignorance about the no self render one vulnerable to suffering conditions, consequently being in a state of poverty or other suffering of which there was not conscious intent of volition. The Buddha was very clear about the causes of various things included causes rooted in biology, in circumstances at birth, and the Buddha also stated, with the exception of those that had reached a certain kind of enlightenment, understanding all causes is impossible. Nothing arises independent of other things or causes and that there are multiple causes that can be very nuanced and complex and we’re not able to know or see all of them. He explicitly rejected the extreme view that everything that happens to a person is predetermined by past karma, as this would prevent individuals from changing their lives through present effort. Even if a person is born into poverty due to past actions, they may, through Good deeds and good intention, come to a point of less suffering due to the poverty but it wouldn’t necessarily change their situation of poverty. The Buddha presents poverty as a root cause of social decline and crime. Crucially, it attributes the root of widespread poverty to a failure in leadership and social justice—specifically when rulers and governments fail to provide resources to those in need. Using the concept of karma to blame people for their poverty or to justify social inequality is actively discouraged. Such views are often described in modern Buddhist discourse as a misunderstanding that leads to an uncompassionate society, rather than aligning with the Buddha’s teachings of empathy. While material poverty is recognized as a form of suffering (dukkha) that hinders spiritual practice, Buddhism emphasizes that spiritual qualities—such as generosity, moral conduct, and contentment (santutthi)—are the true measures of wealth. And do not forget that in Buddhism there is no independent self. That in itself is an illusion and is a very significant root cause of suffering. So we’re generous and we give to others because, on a very real level, we are so interconnected we’re one in the same. So what befalls you befalls me. In other words, it’s possible that my actions in past life or currently have contributed to your present situation of poverty. It’s just much more complex than what this paper demonstrated. In some ways, to most of us Buddhists, the research question itself illustrated the author’s confusion. First, because Buddhism doesn’t teach us to frame someone’s poverty as a reflection of their failed personal responsibility (negative Karma). But secondly, to see it as a contradiction that one acts generously and compassionately, when confronted by others who are less privileged. Again, Buddhism never suggests that you are responsible for the hurricane that tore down your habitat or that you are or your karma is responsible for your families demise in a war. Rather, through practicing the Dharma, your suffering (e.g. strong attachment to material wealth or the aversion to your poverty situation) is what can be alleviated.