15206793, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21642 by Cbua-Consorcio De Bibliotecas, Wiley Online Library on [17/03/2023].

See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Received: 27 May 2021 | Accepted: 14 January 2022

DOI: 10.1002/mar.21642

RESEARCH ARTICLE

What goes around comes around: The effect of belief in karma

on charitable donation behavior

Ming Chen1 | Xing‐Yu (Marcos) Chu2 | Chien‐Huang Lin3 | Shih‐Heng Yu4

1
School of Marketing and Logistics
Management, Nanjing University of Finance Abstract
and Economics, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province,
Karma is the notion that one's current actions will have consequences in the future.
China
2
Business School, Nanjing University, Nanjing,
The present research links the belief in karma with a guilt appeal and examines how
Jiangsu Province, China believing in karma influences the individuals' donation behaviors. The results of four
3
Department of Business Administration, studies demonstrate that for people who hold a strong belief in karma, guilt appeals
National Central University, Jhongli City,
Taoyuan County, Taiwan can arouse the motivation to engage in prosocial activities to remedy past demerits.
4
Department of Business Management, This “remedy demerits” motivation is the reason why individuals who hold a strong
National United University, Miaoli, Taiwan (vs. weak) belief in karma are more likely to donate time (rather than money) and

Correspondence
donate money in lump sums (rather than in installments) when the charitable appeal
Xing‐Yu (Marcos) Chu, Business School, is framed in terms of guilt. Our findings contribute to the literature on specific
Nanjing University, AnZhong Bldg, No. 16
beliefs, individuals' prosocial behaviors, and the motivations of individuals who be-
Jinyin St, Gulou Area, Nanjing 210093, Jiangsu
Province, China. lieve in karma as concerns their responses to charitable appeals. Charitable organi-
Email: marcos.xy.chu@gmail.com
zations can apply the findings by targeting their donor solicitations to individuals
Funding information who believe in karma to enhance engagement in prosocial activities, and by using
National Natural Science Foundation of China, karma priming advertisements to induce individuals to think karmically, thus more
Grant/Award Number: 71902083;
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central efficiently promoting specific donation choices.
Universities, Grant/Award Number:
010414370114; Ministry of Education KEYWORDS
Humanities and Social Sciences Project of
belief, charitable appeal, donation, guilt appeal, karma, prosocial behavior
China, Grant/Award Number: 20YJC630005

1 | INTRODUCTION
Now as a man is like this or like that,
according as he acts and according as he behaves, so
will he be;
a man of good acts will become good, a man of bad
acts, bad;
he becomes pure by pure deeds, bad by bad deeds.
(Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 7th century BCE)
This opening quote reflects the principal doctrine of karma, a
universal causal law by which the future modes of an individual's
existence are determined by his or her good or bad actions
(Krishan, 1997). Although the concept of karma stems from Eastern
culture, the general tenet that the universe punishes sins and rewards
virtue has gained increasing acceptance in the West. The common
saying “you reap what you sow” and the popular television series
“The Good Karma Hospital” are representative examples of the no-
tion of karma in Western culture. Marketers have also applied the
belief in karma to philanthropy. For example, an advertisement for
Karma Kitchen states that “Your meal was a gift from someone who
came before you. To keep the chain of gifts alive, we invite you to
pay it forward for those who dine after you.” Although the concept of
karma resonates with different cultures, the psychology and mar-
keting literature includes few studies on how the belief in karma
affects individuals' decision making (Converse et al., 2012; Kopalle
et al., 2010).
Previous research has focused on how consumer behavior is
affected by such things as superstition (Kramer & Block, 2008, 2011)

Psychol Mark. 2022;39:1065–1077. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar © 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC | 1065


1066 | CHEN
and a belief in fate (Kim et al., 2014; Risen & Gilovich, 2008). Karma is
also a specific spiritual belief, but the literature that focuses on how
belief in karma affects consumer behavior is still limited. Kulow and
Kramer (2016) found that individuals who hold a strong (vs. weak)
belief in karma were more likely to donate time in response to other‐
gain appeals. According to previous research, different donation
options have a strong impact on the effectiveness of a given chari-
table activity (Chandon et al., 2000; Chang et al., 2018). Are other
types of donation (e.g., donating money in a lump sum or in install-
ments) also affected? In addition to other‐gain appeals, guilt appeals
are also commonly used for soliciting charitable donations (Basil
et al., 2006, 2008; Chang, 2011; Hibbert et al., 2007; Renner
et al., 2013). Does a belief in karma interact with the guilt appeal to
influence an individual's choice regarding the type of donation?
The current research aims to answer these questions by ex-
ploring how individual donors' belief in karma influences their do-
nation choices in response to different charitable appeal frames (guilt
appeals vs. nonguilt appeals). The results of four studies indicate that
when the appeal is framed in terms of guilt, donors who hold a strong
(vs. weak) belief in karma prefer to donate time rather than money,
and prefer to donate money in a lump sum rather than in installments.
However, no significant difference was noted in the donation pre-
ference of donors in response to nonguilt appeals, regardless of their
belief regarding karma. We introduce the “remedy demerit” motiva-
tion in this study to explain the underlying mechanism of this effect.
The present research contributes to the literature on karma by
clarifying the connection between the belief in karma and individuals'
different donation choices. This study also contributes to the litera-
ture on the motivations underlying individuals' prosocial behaviors by
introducing the “remedy demerit” motivation. Furthermore, we con-
tribute to the literature on guilt appeals by identifying the interactive
effect between the belief in karma and the guilt appeal. Our findings
suggest that charitable organizations and marketers can (1) target
their donor solicitations to individuals who believe in karma to in-
crease engagement, (2) enhance individuals' karmic thinking via kar-
ma priming advertisements, and (3) promote the specific donation
choices efficiently by framing the appeal differently.
2 | THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 | Karma
The concept of karma arose in India and spread throughout Asia, and
is of significance in several religious cultures, including Hinduism,
Buddhism, and their offshoots (e.g., Jainism) (White et al., 2019).
People who believe in karma often regard this concept as the moral
law of action and consequence. The doctrine of karma has three
essential tenets (Atkinson, 1908; Krishan, 1997; Pappu, 1987). The
first tenet is that people's actions can be classified into two broad
types: appropriate (good) and inappropriate (bad) actions. Second, all
present actions will lead to future consequences. People's prosocial
(antisocial) behaviors will have positive (negative) outcomes, such as
15206793, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21642 by Cbua-Consorcio De Bibliotecas, Wiley Online Library on [17/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
karmic rewards (punishment). The final tenet is the notion of rebirth.
The consequences of actions may emerge in this life; however, the
consequences may be opaque and cumulative, and occur in a later life
or lives instead of the present life.
Previous studies have discussed the impact of various beliefs on
individuals' decision making. People use a belief not only to help them
create a connection between a perceived attribution of causality and
potential outcomes (Kramer & Block, 2011), but also to explain life
occurrences or events that are difficult to understand (Boden &
Berenbaum, 2004). For instance, superstition, which focuses on the
connection between objects or actions and lucky or unlucky out-
comes, can influence the consumers' evaluations and satisfaction
levels (Kramer & Block, 2008, 2011). In addition, a belief in fate en-
tails the notion that there is a force outside of the individual's own
influence that can lead to both positive and negative outcomes (Risen
& Gilovich, 2008). According to Kim et al. (2014), consumers' in-
cidental indulgent choices can be influenced by a belief in fate.
Similar to superstition and a belief in fate, the belief in karma is also a
specific spiritual belief (Kulow & Kramer, 2016). However, the literature
that focuses on the effect of such a belief on consumer behavior is not
extensive. Kopalle et al. (2010) noted that a strong belief in karma de-
creases disconfirmation sensitivity and influences performance expecta-
tions by priming a long‐run orientation. Converse et al. (2012)
demonstrated that when people who believe in karma attempt to manage
uncontrollable outcomes, they are more likely to engage in prosocial
activities. For example, job seekers at a job fair tend to make more
generous pledges to charities when they feel that the outcome of a job
search is uncontrollable because they believe that prosocial behavior will
lead to positive karmic rewards and further result in a successful job
search. Additionally, Kulow and Kramer (2016) found a connection be-
tween the strength of the individual's belief in karma and the willingness
to respond to other‐gain and self‐gain charitable appeals. They posited
that individuals who hold a strong belief in karma were more likely to
donate time than money in response to charitable appeals highlighting
other gains (i.e., other incentives) versus self‐gains (i.e., self‐incentives).
Given the similarity between the belief in karma and other spe-
cific spiritual beliefs, and in light of the previous literature on the
impacts of beliefs on consumer decision making, we propose that an
individual's belief in karma plays a key role in the response to
charitable appeals, especially in terms of the choice between differ-
ent types of donation options.
2.2 | “Remedy demerit” motivation triggered by
guilt appeals and belief in karma
Guilt appeals are commonly used to motivate people to make
charitable donations. A guilt appeal is a type of negative emotional
appeal that motivates favorable attitudinal and behavioral responses
by creating an emotional imbalance (Renner et al., 2013). As the
negative‐state relief hypothesis argues, people like to counterbalance
their temporary negative emotions by benefiting others (Carlson &
Miller, 1987; Miller & Carlson, 1990). Previous research has indicated

CHEN ET AL.
that guilt appeals can influence consumers' attention, attitude, and
purchase intention (Basil et al., 2006, 2008; Chang, 2011; Hibbert
et al., 2007). For example, the arousal of guilt feelings can effectively
grab the individuals' attention and enhance their donation intent
(Hibbert et al., 2007). Additionally, Chang (2011) posited that guilt‐
inducing messages can positively influence consumers' attitudes and
behaviors by arousing or emotionally activating them.
Considering individuals' belief in karma, we propose that guilt
appeals may remind people of past negative behaviors that arouse a
feeling of guilt. According to the doctrine of karma, these past in-
appropriate actions (brought to mind by the guilt appeal) are likely to
lead to negative consequences. In other words, the karmic valence of
individuals who hold a strong belief in karma is temporarily negative
because the guilt appeal has reminded them of their past in-
appropriate actions. Consequently, restoring the karmic valence as
soon as possible may be the priority of these individuals. Performing
prosocial behaviors that can gain karmic rewards is an efficient way
to offset the negative valence. The present research defines the
motivation for individuals engaging in prosocial activities to remedy
their past demerits as the “remedy demerit” motivation. In this con-
text, for individuals whose belief in karma is weak, the “remedy de-
merit” motivation is not expected to be triggered by a guilt appeal
since they do not believe that they have demerits that must be re-
medied. Furthermore, nonguilt appeals that cannot arouse the in-
dividuals' feelings of guilt and generate a negative karmic valence
cannot trigger the “remedy demerit” motivation, regardless of whe-
ther the individual's belief in karma is strong or weak.
According to the doctrine of karma, two crucial characteristics of
the “remedy demerit” motivation may influence individuals' prosocial
behaviors. The first characteristic is sufficiency. Since individuals want
to restore their karmic valence back to positive by engaging in pro-
social activities, the first consideration is whether the karmic rewards
of prosocial activities are enough to recover from the negative karmic
valence. Thus, we expect that individuals who have the “remedy
demerit” motivation will want to ensure that the karmic rewards
gained from their prosocial behaviors are sufficient to accomplish
this. Another characteristic is urgency. Individuals who have the “re-
medy demerit” motivation hope to recover from the negative karmic
valence as soon as possible. Thus, another crucial consideration is
whether the prosocial activities can promptly rectify the negative
karmic imbalance. These two characteristics of the “remedy demerit”
motivation can be used to explain the individual's different donation
choices.
2.3 | Donating time versus money
Time and money are two of the most common donations sought by
charitable organizations. Time and money are intrinsically related and,
to a certain extent, interchangeable (DeVoe & Pfeffer, 2007). How-
ever, people often have different opinions regarding the donation of
time versus money, depending on their given situation (Mogilner
et al., 2008). Previous studies have noted that time is associated with
15206793, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21642 by Cbua-Consorcio De Bibliotecas, Wiley Online Library on [17/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| 1067
abstract concepts (e.g., happiness, awe, confidence, and enthusiasm)
(Aaker et al., 2011; Mogilner et al., 2012; Rudd et al., 2012) and
makes people consider their social connections with others in a more
comprehensive manner (Mogilner, 2010). Reed et al. (2007) argued
that a moral identity makes individuals more likely to donate time
than money to charities. Hildebrand et al. (2017) also found that
consumers make more favorable evaluations of companies that make
in‐kind (e.g., time) donations to corporate social responsibility issues
as opposed to monetary contributions of equivalent value.
In the context of karma, two concepts can explain this effect. The
concept of “dukkha,” which serves as the central orienting concept in
all Buddhist psychology (Mick, 2017), can be translated as “suffering”
or “the problem of human life” (Garfield, 2015, p. 9) and includes
unease, stress, anxiety, unsatisfactoriness, anguish, sorrow, and pain.
The goal of Buddhist psychology is freedom from suffering, and the
realization that well‐being is not attached to enjoyable stimuli
(Wallace, 1999). Besides, time is limited for us because we are all
mortal. Regardless of whether people are poor or rich, the same 24 h
in a day are available for them to do whatever they want (Reed
et al., 2016). Michael LeBoeuf stated, “Waste your money and you're
only out of money, but waste your time and you've lost a part of your
life.” In other words, once time is lost, it cannot be regained (Mogilner
& Aaker, 2009). Thus, for individuals with the “remedy demerit”
motivation, donating time (as opposed to money) is a kind of suffering
that can help remedy the demerits and realize well‐being by gaining
more karmic rewards.
In addition to “dukkha,” the concept of “dana,” which refers to
the act of charitable contributions, may also provide certain guidance
(Ahmad et al., 2016). In this concept, the scope of charitable con-
tributions includes not only currency, food and medicine but also
kindness, compassion and knowledge, all of which may be given as
gifts (Majumdar, 2015). In other words, giving can be either material
or immaterial according to the concept of dana. For instance, do-
nating money to welfare organizations and donating books to public
libraries are examples of material donations. Keeping a neighborhood
park neat and participating in other voluntary activities are examples
of immaterial donations. Bodhi (2005) argued that if one cannot
contribute funds for such projects but provides physical labor, the
karmic results are even greater. However, since karma works in the
future, whether one's karmic rewards for dana will remedy a given
demerit is unknown. Thus, although donating money and donating
time seem to be equally mundane, individuals who believe strongly in
karma regard physical labor as a means to gain greater karmic
rewards.
In summary, for individuals whose belief in karma is strong, guilt
appeals induce the sense that their karmic valence is temporarily
negative and triggers the “remedy demerit” motivation. Donating time
can help individuals gain more karmic rewards than donating money
to reset their negative karmic valence to positive, thus ensuring that
the karmic balance can be restored, as predicted by the characteristic
of sufficiency. However, for individuals whose belief in karma is weak,
we do not expect the “remedy demerit” motivation to be triggered by
guilt appeals. Furthermore, the “remedy demerit” motivation is not

1068 | CHEN
expected to be triggered by nonguilt appeals, regardless of whether
the individual's belief in karma is strong or weak. Thus, we propose
the following hypotheses:
H1a ‐ Individuals who hold a strong (vs. weak) belief in karma are
more likely to donate time than money in response to guilt
appeals.
H1b ‐ Individuals have no preference for donating time or money
in response to nonguilt appeals, regardless of whether their
belief in karma is strong or weak.
H2 ‐ The effect of an individual's strong belief in karma on the
preference for donating time rather than money in response to
guilt appeals is mediated by the “remedy demerit” motivation.
2.4 | Donating money via a lump sum versus in
installments
Both time and money are common types of donations. However,
money is more commonly chosen to be donated when schedule and
distance issues are taken into consideration. For example, when in-
dividuals want to respond to prosocial appeals from other cities or
even overseas, or prosocial appeal activities conflict with their
timetables, donating money seems to be the only option. In fact,
existing statistics (T. Yang, 2020) highlight this argument. According
to this report, the number of registered real‐name volunteers in
China was 169 million, donating a total of 2.27 billion hours of vo-
lunteer service in 2019. In other words, the average volunteer spent
only approximately 13.4 h a year in volunteer service. However, the
average volunteer contributed approximately 535 RMB (approxi-
mately $83) a year in monetary donations.
When individuals choose to donate money, donating via a lump sum
and donating in installments are two common options in the real world.
For example, a person can choose to donate $360 to a charitable foun-
dation in a single contribution or donate $30 each month for a year.
However, the relevant literature regarding the difference between these
two donation options is sparse, and focuses particularly on corporate
donations (Chin et al., 2013; Jin & He, 2018; Sengabira et al., 2020).
Previous studies on how corporate donations via a lump sum or in in-
stallments influence consumer perceptions and behavioral responses
have drawn relatively consistent conclusions. Jin and He (2018) argued
that donating a larger single amount of money via a lump sum (amount‐
focused strategy) can show consumers that the donor firm has more
resources and is more capable of helping charities. In contrast, donating
money in installments (frequency‐focused strategy) is more likely to in-
dicate that the donor firm has the persistence to help charities. In other
words, information regarding the donation amount (frequency) indicates
to the customers that the firm's persistence and commitment are less
(more) relevant while the firm's resources and ability are more (less)
15206793, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21642 by Cbua-Consorcio De Bibliotecas, Wiley Online Library on [17/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
relevant (Chin et al., 2013; Hasan et al., 2018). Therefore, the question is
whether the “remedy demerit” motivation influences the individual's do-
nation preference for donating money via a lump sum or in installments.
According to our definition, individuals who are driven by the “re-
medy demerit” motivation have not only a sense of guilt but also a feeling
of urgency to remedy their past demerits to avoid unfavorable karmic
consequences. This sense of urgency may further influence their donation
choices. In other words, such individuals are expected to be more de-
termined to identify a means by which to relieve their sense of guilt. For
example, if the karma valence is negative, they will urgently seek to
remedy demerits through prosocial behavior so that they do not re-
incarnate as an inferior creature, such as an insect. In contrast, nonguilt
appeals do not arouse the individual's sense of a negative karmic valence.
In this context, the goal of prosocial behavior is not to remedy demerits
but to ensure a superior reincarnation (as someone higher up the social
scale), which is less urgent. In other words, the sufficiency of a donation
via lump sum and a donation in installments is equivalent, since the total
amount of money donated is the same. The difference between a do-
nation via lump sum and in installments pertains to the time span over
which the donation is made. The sense of urgency may cause individuals
to donate money via a lump sum to remedy their demerits immediately,
rather than donating over a long period of time, which might force them
to dwell on the negative feelings associated with past demerits. Thus, we
propose the following hypotheses:
H3a ‐ Individuals who hold a strong (vs. weak) belief in karma are
more likely to donate money via a lump sum than in install-
ments in response to guilt appeals.
H3b ‐ Individuals have no preference for donating money via a
lump sum or in installments in response to nonguilt appeals,
regardless of whether their belief in karma is strong or weak.
H4 ‐ The effect of the individual's strong belief in karma on the
preference for donating money via a lump sum rather than in
installments in response to guilt appeals is mediated by the
“remedy demerit” motivation.
3 | OVERVIEW OF STUDIE S
We conducted four studies to test H1–H4. Figure 1 shows the
conceptual framework including an overview of the hypotheses
and the study in which these hypotheses are investigated. In
Study 1, we preliminarily demonstrate the interactive effect be-
tween the belief in karma and guilt frame on the individual's
choice of donating time or money. Study 2, which was conducted
in the field, provides further evidence for the effect found in
Study 1 and features mediation by the “remedy demerit” moti-
vation. Study 3 analyzes the interactive effect on the individual's
preference for donating money via a lump sum or in installments,
 15206793, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21642 by Cbua-Consorcio De Bibliotecas, Wiley Online Library on [17/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CHEN ET AL. | 1069

FIGURE 1 Conceptual framework

TABLE 1 Structures of four studies

Study Independent variable Moderator Mediator Dependent variable

Study 1 Laboratory Belief in karma (weak vs. Charitable appeal (guilt Donation preference (1 = donating money;
experiment strong) vs. nonguilt) 7 = donating time)

Study 2 Experiment in Belief in karma (weak vs. “remedy demerit” Donation choice (donating time vs. donating
the field strong) motivation money)

Study 3 Laboratory Karma prime (present Donation choice (donating money via a lump
experiment vs. absent) sum vs. in installments)

Study 4 Experiment in Belief in karma (weak vs. “remedy demerit” Donation choice (donating money via a lump
the field strong) motivation sum vs. in installments)

while Study 4 explores the mediation effect of the “remedy de-
merit” motivation in the field. A summary of the structure of four
studies is shown in Table 1.
4 | S TU D Y 1
Study 1 aims to explore how the effect of the guilt appeals moderates
an individual's belief in karma, with the outcome variable being the
preference for donating time or money (H1a and H1b).
students were shown eight appeals (four guilt appeals and four
nonguilt appeals) and were asked to evaluate how the message of
each appeal made them feel. The questionnaire included four items
measuring guilt (e.g., “I would be ashamed of it”; “I feel guilty about
it”), which were measured on a 7‐point scale developed by Cotte
et al. (2005) (Cronbach's α = 0.95). A t‐test was conducted to examine
whether the participants' feelings of guilt differed significantly be-
tween the guilt and nonguilt appeal conditions, which evoked the
highest (M = 5.40, SD = 0.81) and lowest (M = 3.24, SD = 1.02) levels
of guilt, t (1, 42) = 7.75, p < 0.01, respectively.

4.1 | Method 4.1.3 | Procedure and measures

4.1.1 | Participants and design
This study had a measured belief in karma × 2 (charitable appeal
frame: guilt vs. nonguilt) between‐subjects design. A total of 160
students (48.7% female, Mage = 20.63, SD = 1.52) from a public uni-
versity in Taiwan participated in this study in exchange for course
credit. We were interested only in the participants' preference for
donating time versus money. Thus, we excluded 26 participants who
said they would prefer not to donate (Reed et al., 2016), thereby
retaining 134 participants (47.8% female, Mage = 21.57, SD = 1.48).
4.1.2 | Pretest
To identify messages that we could use to manipulate guilt appeals,
we conducted a pretest at a public university in Taiwan. Forty‐four
Based on the results of the pretest, we developed two appeal messages
to be used in the study, one for the guilt appeal condition and one for the
nonguilt appeal condition. The participants in the guilt appeal condition
read the appeal message focusing on the negative outcome caused by
their past behaviors. In the case of the nonguilt appeal condition, parti-
cipants were shown an appeal message that also presented a negative
outcome, but one that was not caused by their past behaviors (see details
in Supporting Information Appendix S1).
After reading the appeal message, the participants were told that
an afforestation effort was requesting donations. Both time and
money were equally important for the volunteer activity. Participants
were asked to indicate what they would like to do (0 = “No, thanks!
I prefer not to donate”; 1 = “Donate $300 TWD [approximately $11
USD] to hire people for 2 hours of afforestation activities [according
to the average hourly wage]”; 7 = “Donate 2 h of personal time to the
afforestation activity”).
 15206793, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21642 by Cbua-Consorcio De Bibliotecas, Wiley Online Library on [17/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1070 | CHEN ET AL.

Furthermore, participants were asked to complete the belief in karma

scale (e.g., “I believe in karma”; “I believe in reincarnation in which one

Donating money via a lump sum versus in

becomes better [worse] for having performed good [bad] actions”)

p Value

>0.10

0.088

<0.05
(Kopalle et al., 2010; Cronbach's α = 0.80). Next, we used the same four‐
item guilt scale (Cotte et al., 2005) as in the pretest as a manipulation
check for the guilt appeal. Lastly, participants were debriefed and told
that the choices they made were hypothetical answers to this hypothe-

Wald Z
tical situation and that they would not need to implement their choices.

installments (Study 4)

−1.10

−1.71

2.41
4.2 | Results

−0.20

−2.04

0.62
4.2.1 | Manipulation check

β
The results of the manipulation check on guilt appeal showed that the

Donating money via a lump sum versus in

participants in the guilt appeal condition (M = 5.09, SD = 1.10) per-

p Value

>0.10

>0.10

<0.05
ceived a higher level of guilt than did those in the nonguilt appeal
condition (M = 3.14, SD = 1.09, t (1, 132) = 10.24, p < 0.01).

Wald Z
4.2.2 | Donation preference

installments (Study 3)

−0.52

−0.26

2.29
We conducted regression analysis with belief in karma and charitable
appeal frame as the independent variables, and donation preference
as the dependent variable. The results highlighted a significant in-

−0.27

−0.13

1.79
teraction between the charitable appeal frame and the belief in
β

karma (β = 0.52, t = 2.38, p < 0.05) (see Table 2). In response to the
guilt appeal, participants who held a strong belief in karma were more
p Value

0.095

0.066

<0.01
likely to donate time (M = 4.84) than were those whose belief in
Donating time versus money

karma was weak (M = 3.49, β = 0.45, t = 3.10, p < 0.01).

However, when the appeal frame was nonguilt, no significant dif-
Wald Z

ference was observed in the percentage of participants who

−1.67

−1.84

2.58

donated time, between the strong (M = 3.37) and weak belief in

karma conditions (M = 3.58, β = −0.07, t = −0.43, p > 0.10) (see
(Study 2)

Figure 2).
−0.33

−2.33

0.71
β

4.3 | Discussion
p Value
Donation preference (Study 1)

>0.10

>0.10

<0.05

Study 1 found that when responding to a guilt appeal, individuals who

Dependent variable

held a strong belief in karma were more likely to donate time than were
−0.43

−1.39

2.38

those whose belief in karma was weak. When the appeal frame was
t

nonguilt, the effect vanished. These results confirmed H1a and H1b.
Results of four studies

However, the underlying mechanism of this effect was still not clear.
−0.07

−1.13

0.52

Thus, we conducted Study 2 in the field to provide further evidence.

β

Belief in karma × guilt

Independent variable

5 | S TU D Y 2
Two‐way interactions
Belief in karma

This study was intended to explore the mediation effect of the

Guilt appeal
Main effects
TABLE 2

appeal

“remedy demerit” motivation. In addition, since participants in

Study 1 were students whose belief in karma was relatively weak
(M = 3.51 in Study 1), we conducted this study on Putuo Mountain,

CHEN ET AL.
F I G U R E 2 Interaction between belief in karma and charitable
appeal frame on donation preference (Study 1)
which is one of the four famous Buddhist mountains in China, to
enhance the participants' average karma scale.
5.1 | Method
5.1.1 | Participants and design
This study had a measured belief in karma × 2 (charitable appeal
frame: guilt vs. nonguilt) between‐subjects design. A total of 178
tourists (47.8% female, Mage = 36.94, SD = 6.44) participated in this
study. Fifty‐eight participants who preferred not to donate were
excluded, thereby retaining 120 participants (49.2% female, Mage =
34.94, SD = 6.14). As a reward, each participant who read the mes-
sage and finished the questionnaire was given a bottle of mineral
water that was worth 3 RMB (approximately $0.4).
5.1.2 | Procedure and measures
First, the participants were asked to indicate how much half an
hour of their time was worth to them in RMB. Next, the partici-
pants were randomly assigned to the guilt and nonguilt appeal
conditions and asked to read the appeal message for the corre-
sponding conditions. The study was designed as a publicity
campaign on forest protection. The same appeal messages as in
Study 1 were used as the stimuli to manipulate the charitable
appeal frames in this study (see Supporting Information Appen-
dix S1). After reading the appeal message, the participants were
told that a volunteer activity that aims to publicize the idea of
protecting forests was asking for donations. Both time and money
were equally important for the volunteer activity. Next, the par-
ticipants were asked to choose from three donation options:
“Volunteer half an hour to the publicity campaign,” “Donate the
equivalent of half an hour in money (the amount you wrote
previously),” or “No, thanks.”
To evaluate the “remedy demerit” motivation, the participants were
asked to indicate their agreement with the following statements: “I would
like to make amends for my past mistakes” and “I want to remedy what I
15206793, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21642 by Cbua-Consorcio De Bibliotecas, Wiley Online Library on [17/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| 1071
have done before” on a 7‐point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly
agree) (Cronbach's α = 0.83).
Next, the participants were asked to complete the belief in karma
scale (Cronbach's α = 0.81) and the four‐item guilt scale as a manip-
ulation check for the guilt appeals as used in Study 1. Finally, the
participants were told that the choices they made were hypothetical
answers to this study and that they would not need to implement
their choices. Furthermore, the participants were asked not to share
this information with other participants who had not yet made
choices. All the participants in this study completed the procedure
alone to eliminate any potential interference.
5.2 | Results
5.2.1 | Manipulation check
The results of the manipulation check on the guilt appeal showed that
the participants in the guilt appeal condition (M = 5.15, SD = 1.12)
perceived a higher level of guilt than did those in the nonguilt appeal
condition (M = 3.08, SD = 1.09, t (1, 118) = 10.24, p < 0.01).
5.2.2 | Donation choice
We ran a logistic regression with the participants' choices as the
dependent variable. The dependent variable was coded as “Donating
time = 1” and “Donating money = 0,” and the independent variables
were coded as “Guilt appeal = 1” and “Nonguilt appeal = 0.” The re-
sults indicated a significant interaction between the charitable appeal
frame and belief in karma (β = 0.71, WaldZ = 2.58, p < 0.01). Speci-
fically, in response to the guilt appeal, participants who held a strong
belief in karma were more likely to donate time (76.72%) than were
those whose belief in karma was weak (51.48%, β = 0.38, Wald
Z = 1.98, p < 0.05). In contrast, when the appeal was framed as non-
guilt, we observed a marginally significant difference in the percen-
tage of participants who donated time when comparing the
responses of those in the strong (32.78%) and weak belief in karma
conditions (56.68%, β = −0.33, Wald Z = −1.67, p = 0.095) (see
Figure 3).
5.2.3 | Mediation analysis
To determine whether the “remedy demerit” motivation mediated
the effect of belief in karma on the donation choices moderated
by the charitable appeal frame, we conducted a mediation ana-
lysis using PROCESS Model 8 with 5000 bootstrap samples
(Hayes, 2018). We found a significant indirect effect, with a 95%
confidence interval excluding zero (β = 0.25, CI [0.0708–0.5552]),
indicating significant mediation by the “remedy demerit” moti-
vation. For the guilt appeal framing, the “remedy demerit” moti-
vation was triggered only for participants whose belief in karma

1072 | CHEN
F I G U R E 3 Interaction between belief in karma and charitable
appeal frame on percentage of time donation (Study 2)
was strong (CI [0.0901–0.5919], excluding 0). In contrast, when
the appeal was framed as nonguilt, the “remedy demerit” moti-
vation was not triggered and did not mediate the effect, regard-
less of whether the belief in karma was weak or strong (CI
[−0.0374 to 0.2201], including 0).
5.3 | Discussion
The results of Study 2 replicated the findings of Study 1, thus con-
firming H1a and H1b. Moreover, Study 2 demonstrated the med-
iating role of the “remedy demerit” motivation for this effect, as
predicted by H2. We found a marginal effect (p = 0.095) in the
nonguilt condition in this study. One possible explanation is that the
participants we found on Putto Mountain (Buddhist Mountain) held a
stronger belief in karma, in comparison to ordinary people. They were
more likely to participate in charitable activity. However, conducting
this experiment in the field was still beneficial as it greatly enhanced
the robustness and generalizability of the results. Thus, the following
studies will continue to confirm the effect in both a lab (Study 3) and
a field setting (Study 4).
In Studies 1 and 2, we measured the respondents' donation
preference for either time or money. While both time and money
are common types of donations, money is more commonly do-
nated because of various issues (e.g., convenience, efficiency,
etc.). Thus, we conducted Studies 3 and 4 to examine new do-
nation options that are often seen when donating. We intended
to investigate whether the choice between donating money via a
lump sum and in installments is influenced by a belief in karma
and a guilt appeal.
6 | S TU D Y 3
To test H3a and H3b, we conducted Study 3 to explore how the
effect of the guilt appeal moderates an individual's primed belief in
karma, with the outcome variable of preference for donating money
via a lump sum or in installments. In addition, we used different
priming techniques to manipulate the belief in karma to eliminate the
participants' relatively weak belief in karma.
15206793, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21642 by Cbua-Consorcio De Bibliotecas, Wiley Online Library on [17/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
6.1 | Method
6.1.1 | Participants and design
This study had a 2 (charitable appeal frame: guilt vs. nonguilt) × 2
(karma prime: present vs. absent) between‐subjects design. A total of
120 students (51.7% female, Mage = 21.61, SD = 1.65) from a public
university in China participated in this study in exchange for course
credit.
6.1.2 | Procedure and measures
We manipulated the belief in karma by using the same stimuli used by
Kulow and Kramer (2016). The participants in the karma priming
condition viewed a humorous 38 s commercial developed by
connect2earth.org. The commercial indicated the central doctrine of
karma. The advertisement began with a man littering, which led to a
chain of events, and finally circled back to the man with a negative
consequence (getting struck in the shoulder by an arrow and being hit
by a truck). At the end of the commercial, the tagline “It all comes to
you” was shown. The participants in the no‐karma‐priming condition
viewed a humorous 38 s commercial for a Mercedes Benz E‐Class.
The commercial began with a pretty woman trying to order fast food.
When the woman was told that she was in a library, she repeated her
order again but in a hushed tone. The commercial ended with a
tagline, “Beauty is nothing without brains.”
We used the same appeal messages as in Study 1 as the stimuli
to manipulate the charitable appeal framing (see Supporting In-
formation Appendix S1). After reading the same appeal message as
used in Study 1, participants were told that an afforestation effort
was requesting donations. Next, the participants were asked to
choose from two donation options: “Donate 30 RMB (approximately
$4.5) one time” or “Donate 10 RMB (approximately $1.5) monthly for
three months.” Next, as a manipulation check for guilt appeal and
karma priming, the participants were asked to complete the four‐item
guilt scale (Cotte et al., 2005) and the belief in karma scale (Kopalle
et al., 2010) used in Study 1. Lastly, the participants were debriefed
and told that the choices that they made were hypothetical answers
to a hypothetical situation and that they would not need to imple-
ment their choices.
6.2 | Results
6.2.1 | Manipulation check
The results of the manipulation check for guilt appeal showed that
the participants in the guilt appeal condition (M = 5.02, SD = 1.12)
perceived a higher level of guilt than did those in the nonguilt appeal
condition (M = 3.32, SD = 1.03, t (1, 118) = 8.32, p < 0.01).
Additionally, the manipulation check for karma priming indicated that
the participants in the karma priming condition (M = 4.82, SD = 1.01)

CHEN ET AL.
thought more karmically than did those in the no‐karma‐priming
condition (M = 3.35, SD = 1.10, t (1, 118) = 7.64, p < 0.01).
6.2.2 | Financial donation choice
We ran a logistic regression with the participants' financial donation
choices as the dependent variable. The dependent variable was co-
ded as “Donation via a lump sum = 1” and “Donation in install-
ments = 0”; the two independent variables were coded as “Guilt
appeal = 1” and “Nonguilt appeal = 0” and as “Karma prime pre-
sent = 1” and “Karma prime absent = 0.” The results indicated a sig-
nificant interaction effect between the charitable appeal frame and
karma priming (β = 1.79, WaldZ = 2.29, p < 0.05). More specifically,
the participants who were thinking more karmically (80%) were more
likely to donate money via a lump sum than were those who were
thinking less karmically (46.67%) in response to the guilt appeal
(β = 1.52, WaldZ = 2.60 , p < 0.01). In contrast, when the appeal was
framed as nonguilt, no significant difference was observed in the
percentage of participants who donated money via a lump sum be-
tween more (43.33%) and less karmic thinking conditions (50%)
(β = −0.27, WaldZ = −0.52, p > 0.10) (see Figure 4).
6.3 | Discussion
By using different donation choices, Study 3 found similar results as
in the two previous studies, which confirmed the robustness of the
effect. In Study 3, we found that individuals who held a strong (vs.
weak) belief in karma were more likely to donate money via a lump
sum than in installments in response to a guilt appeal (confirmed H3a
and H3b). However, the effect did not occur when the appeal frame
was nonguilt. Furthermore, Study 3 manipulated (rather than mea-
sured) participants' karmic beliefs via the display of different adver-
tisements. It extended the managerial applications of the findings by
demonstrating that individuals can be induced to think karmically by
viewing karma priming ads. In the next study, we further tested the
underlying mechanism in a field setting.
F I G U R E 4 Interaction between charitable appeal frame and
karma prime on percentage of donating money via a lump sum
(Study 3)
15206793, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21642 by Cbua-Consorcio De Bibliotecas, Wiley Online Library on [17/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| 1073
7 | STU DY 4
This study aimed to demonstrate how the “remedy demerit” moti-
vation mediated individuals' donation choice. This study was also
conducted on Putuo Mountain to provide further evidence for the
effect.
7.1 | Method
7.1.1 | Participants and design
Similar to Study 2, Study 4 had a measured belief in karma × 2
(charitable appeal frame: guilt vs. nonguilt) between‐subjects design.
A total of 152 tourists (49.3% female; Mage = 36.94, SD = 7.34) par-
ticipated in this study. Twenty‐three participants who preferred not
to donate were excluded, thereby retaining 129 participants (47.3%
female; Mage = 34.13, SD = 7.13). Every participant was presented a
bottle of mineral water that was worth 3 RMB (approximately $0.4)
as a reward.
7.1.2 | Procedure and measures
First, the participants were randomly assigned to the guilt and non-
guilt appeal conditions and asked to read the corresponding appeal
message. Similar to Study 2, this study was designed as a publicity
campaign on forest protection. We used the same appeal messages
as in Study 1 to manipulate the charitable appeal framing in this
study. Subsequently, participants were told that an afforestation
activity was requesting donations. All the participants were asked to
choose one of three options: “Donate RMB 30 one time,” “Donate
RMB 10 monthly for 3 months,” or “Do nothing.”
Next, participants were asked to complete the evaluation
related to the “remedy demerit” motivation (Cronbach's α = 0.88),
belief in karma scale (Cronbach's α = 0.89), and four‐item guilt
scale as a manipulation check for the guilt appeal. Finally, as in
Study 2, the participants were told that the choices they made
were hypothetical answers and that they would not have to im-
plement their choices. They were also asked to not share this
information with other participants who had not yet made choi-
ces. All the participants in this study completed the procedure
alone in a sequential manner.
7.2 | Results
7.2.1 | Manipulation check
The manipulation check on guilt appeal indicated that the participants
in the guilt appeal condition (M = 4.95, SD = 1.24) perceived a sig-
nificantly higher level of guilt than did those in the nonguilt appeal
condition (M = 3.22, SD = 1.19, t (1, 127) = 8.11, p < 0.01).

1074 | CHEN
F I G U R E 5 Interaction between belief in karma and charitable
appeal frame on percentage of donating money via a lump sum
(Study 4)
7.2.2 | Donation choice
We ran the same logistic regression analysis as in Study 3 with the par-
ticipants' choices as the dependent variable. The results indicated a sig-
nificant interaction between the charitable appeal frame and belief in
karma (β = 0.62, WaldZ = 2.41, p < 0.05). When responding to the guilt
appeal, participants who held a strong belief in karma (77.68%) were
more likely to donate money via a lump sum than were those whose
belief in karma was weak (47.93%, β = 0.43, WaldZ = 2.28, p < 0.05). In
contrast, when the appeal was framed as nonguilt, no significant differ-
ence was observed in the percentage of participants who donated money
via a lump sum, between the strong (38.77%) and weak belief in karma
conditions (53.71%, β = −0.20 , WaldZ = −1.10 , p > 0.10) (see Figure 5).
7.3 | Mediation analysis
To determine whether the “remedy demerit” motivation mediated the
effect of belief in karma on donation choice moderated by charitable
appeal frame, we conducted a bias‐corrected mediation analysis
using PROCESS Model 8 with 5000 bootstrap samples (Hayes, 2018).
The indirect effect of moderated mediation was significant, with a
95% confidence interval excluding zero (β = 0.27, CI
[0.0897–0.5636]), indicating significant mediation by the “remedy
demerit” motivation. When the appeal was framed as guilt, the “re-
medy demerit” motivation was triggered only for participants who
strongly believed in karma (CI [0.1096–0.6011], excluding 0). In
contrast, when the appeal was framed as nonguilt, the “remedy de-
merit” motivation was not triggered and did not mediate the effect,
regardless of whether the belief in karma was weak or strong (CI
[−0.0423 to 0.1934], including 0).
8 | DISC US SION
In Study 4, we replicated the findings of Study 3, which supported
H3a and H3b. The results of Studies 3 and 4 were consistent.
Moreover, effect of the strong belief in karma on the individual's
15206793, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21642 by Cbua-Consorcio De Bibliotecas, Wiley Online Library on [17/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
preference for donating money via a lump sum rather than in in-
stallments in response to a guilt appeal is mediated by the “remedy
demerit” motivation, as predicted by H4. Similar to Study 2, Study 4
was conducted in the field which increased the generalizability and
robustness of the results.
9 | GE NERAL DISC US SION
Numerous studies have discussed the factors that can influence in-
dividuals' charitable behavior, such as customer engagement
(Christofi et al., 2020), self‐gain/other‐gain appeals (Chapman
et al., 2020), collective threats (Zheng et al., 2021), servant brand
consumption (Ho et al., 2021). However, research on the joint effect
of belief and appeal frame on donors' behavior remains limited. Thus,
the present research proposed an interactive effect between belief in
karma and appeal frame (guilt appeal vs. nonguilt appeal) on donation
choice. In addition, we introduced the “remedy demerit” motivation
to explain the underlying mechanism of this effect.
Four studies were conducted to support our hypotheses. Stu-
dies 1 and 2 focused on the joint effect of karma belief and appeal
frame on the donor's choice between donating time and donating
money. Studies 3 and 4 focused on the options of donating money
via a lump sum or in installments. Studies 1 and 3 were conducted as
laboratory experiments. We conducted Studies 2 and 4 in the field
to enhance the generalizability and robustness of the results. Study
1 provided the primary evidence of the effect that individuals who
hold a strong (vs. weak) belief in karma are more likely to donate
time than money in response to a guilt appeal. For individuals whose
belief in karma is strong, guilt appeals induce the sense that their
karmic valence is temporarily negative. Donating time offers a
greater karmic reward than donating money, thus ensuring that
their karmic valence is reset from negative to positive. Study 2 re-
plicated the results in a field setting and demonstrated the med-
iating role of the “remedy demerit” motivation. The “remedy
demerit” motivation can be triggered by guilt appeals, but only for
individuals whose belief in karma is strong. The sufficiency char-
acteristic of motivation will make individuals want to gain sufficient
karmic rewards from their prosocial behaviors. In Study 3, instead of
measuring, we manipulated participants' karmic thinking by pre-
senting different advertisements. The results demonstrated that
individuals who were thinking more karmically were more likely to
donate money via a lump sum than in installments in response to a
guilt appeal. Individuals who believe their karmic valence is tem-
porarily negative are more determined to identify a means by which
to restore their karmic balance quickly. Compared with donating
money in installments, donating money via a lump sum offers im-
mediate karmic rewards, thus decreasing the amount of time during
which their karmic valence is negative. The results of Study 4 were
consistent with Study 3 and further identified that the effect was
mediated by the “remedy demerit” motivation. For individuals who
have the “remedy demerit” motivation, the urgency characteristic of
motivation will cause them to donate money via a lump sum (rather

CHEN ET AL.
than in installments) to decrease the tendency to dwell on the ne-
gative feelings associated with past demerits.
10 | TH EORETIC AL I MPLICAT I ON S
The present research adds to the literature in several ways. First,
previous literature on specific beliefs has focused on the effect of
superstition (Kramer & Block, 2008, 2011; Z. Yang, 2011) and the
belief in fate (Kim et al., 2014; Risen & Gilovich, 2008). Although the
belief in karma is also a specific spiritual belief, the literature on how
this belief affects consumers is limited in the marketing and psy-
chology fields. The present research contributes to the literature on
karma by discussing the connection between individuals' belief in
karma and their different donation choices, that is, between donating
time and donating money, and the preference for donating money via
a lump sum or in installments.
Second, individuals' motivations for performing prosocial beha-
viors have been discussed extensively (Aaker et al., 2011; Chang &
Chu, 2020; Chapman et al., 2020; Ho et al., 2021; Kulow &
Kramer, 2016). However, motivations related to the belief in karma
have received limited research attention. The present research con-
tributes to the research on the motivations underlying individuals'
prosocial behaviors by introducing the “remedy demerit” motivation,
which is triggered by the interactive effect of the belief in karma and
the guilt appeal frame. Furthermore, this motivation can be triggered
only when individuals hold a strong belief in karma and are re-
sponding to a guilt appeal. Two crucial characteristics of motivation
(sufficiency and urgency) are used to explain differences in in-
dividuals' preferences for donating time or donating money, and their
choice between donating money via a lump sum and in installments.
Third, the impacts of the guilt appeal frame on consumer behavior
have been investigated (Basil et al., 2006, 2008; Chang, 2011; Hibbert
et al., 2007; Renner et al., 2013). However, the relationship between
karma belief and guilt appeal has not been discussed in previous research.
The present research contributes to the research on guilt appeals by
identifying the interactive effect between individuals' belief in karma and
guilt appeal. Moreover, this study extends the application of guilt appeals
by linking the guilt appeal to the choice between donating time and
donating money as well as the choice between donating money via a
lump sum and in installments. We also demonstrated the moderating role
of guilt appeal in this effect.
Kulow and Kramer (2016) found an interactive effect between
belief in karma and appeal frame on donation choice. The current
research adds to this literature and is also distinct from previous
research in the following ways: (1) While the focus of appeal frame in
Kulow and Kramer's paper was on self‐gain and other‐gain, the cur-
rent research investigated a more commonly used charitable appeal
(i.e., the guilt appeal). We discussed the joint influence of karma belief
and guilt on donation choice. (2) Previous research has focused on
the preference for either donating time or donating money. Our re-
search enriches this stream by focusing on other donation choices,
such as choosing between donating money via a lump sum or in
15206793, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21642 by Cbua-Consorcio De Bibliotecas, Wiley Online Library on [17/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| 1075
installments. (3) The underlying mechanism revealed by our research,
the “remedy demerit” motivation, is also different from motivations
found in prior research since it can be triggered only by the combi-
nation of the individual's strong belief in karma and the presentation
of a guilt appeal.
11 | MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
The current research provides rich managerial implications. Giving
USA (2020) reported that the total estimated charitable donations in
the United States in 2019 amounted to $449.64 billion. Individuals
remained the largest source of charitable donations and accounted
for 69% of the total donations in 2019. Thus, it is crucial for both
charitable organizations and marketers to understand the psychology
of donors (individual donors, especially) to persuade and motivate
them to participate in donation activities. Our study suggests that
charitable organizations can target their donor recruitment efforts by
appealing to people with specific beliefs (e.g., karma) since such in-
dividuals are more likely to engage in prosocial activities.
Furthermore, both karmic thinking and the appeal frame were
manipulated by advertisements in Study 3. Thus, the results suggest
that marketers can use different advertisements to temporarily in-
crease individuals' karmic thinking, or combine it with the guilt appeal
frame to arouse the “remedy demerit” motivation. In other words,
even individuals who do not believe in karma can also be induced to
think more karmically by viewing karma priming advertisements,
which can enhance their engagement in prosocial activities or in-
crease their purchase intention for the advertised product.
The present research demonstrated the interactive effect of
karma belief and guilt appeal on individuals' donation choices.
Hence, the findings can be used by charitable organizations to
promote specific donation choices more efficiently. For example,
personal engagement is more important than financial donations
for certain charitable appeals. Marketers can use the guilt appeal
together with karma priming advertisements to increase the
likelihood that the individual will participate in the activities
personally (e.g., volunteer). Similar methods can also be used to
enhance individuals' donation preference for donating money via
a lump sum (e.g., fundraising).
12 | L I M I TAT I O NS AN D F U TU R E
RESEARCH
This study has several limitations that can be addressed in future
research. First, the stimuli we used for guilt appeals in the studies
were moderate, based on the guilt score (Cotte et al., 2005). Thus, we
found the positive effect of guilt appeal on the “remedy demerit”
motivation. However, a heavy‐handed guilt appeal may also lead to
feelings of anger, annoyance, and irritation (Coulter & Pinto, 1995).
There may be a pattern of diminishing returns, in which the effect of
the guilt appeal on the “remedy demerit” motivation is positive at low

1076 | CHEN
levels of induced guilt but diminishes at higher levels. This question
merits additional research.
Second, we discussed only the preference between donating
time and donating money, and between donating via a lump sum and
in installments. Other prosocial behaviors (e.g., green behaviors) can
be considered in future research. For example, when responding to
different advertisements, are consumers who hold a strong belief in
karma be more likely to choose recyclable products over those that
cannot be recycled? Do they also prefer products with other green
characteristics when the appeal is guilt framed? Such questions may
be interesting to address in future work.
Furthermore, the present research focused only on individuals who
believe in karma, and the application of the results may be subject to
geographical constraints. However, although people in different countries
have different cultures, they may hold the same beliefs. In other words,
individuals who hold the same beliefs adhere to the same doctrines (e.g.,
karma), which are not changed by cultural differences. In addition, the
doctrines of karma and other mainstream religions have common ground
in several aspects. For example, the doctrines of both karma and Chris-
tianity encourage people to perform honorable deeds. Moreover, sin is a
concept included in both karma and Christianity (Grumett & Plant, 2012),
which may lead to a motivation similar to that of “remedy demerit” in
Christianity. Thus, the effect of the interaction between the charitable
appeal frame and the belief in karma on individuals' donation choices may
be extended to other religions, such as Christianity. This is also another
interesting avenue for future research.
D A TA A V A I L A B I L I T Y S T A T E M E N T
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.
A C KN O W L E D G M E N T S
The authors thank the editor, associate editor, and anonymous re-
viewers for their insightful and constructive input and guidance.
Research funding from Ministry of Education Humanities and Social
Sciences Project of China [20YJC630005] was granted to Ming Chen.
Research funding from National Natural Science Foundation of China
[71902083] and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities [010414370114] were granted to Xing‐Yu (Marcos) Chu.
CO NFL I CT OF INTERES T S
The authors declare that there are no conflict of interests.
ETHICS STATEME NT
All the procedures performed in the studies involving human participants
were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research
committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amend-
ments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained
from all individual participants in the study.
ORCID
Ming Chen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1000-4561
Xing‐Yu (Marcos) Chu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2213-6465
15206793, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21642 by Cbua-Consorcio De Bibliotecas, Wiley Online Library on [17/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
RE F ER EN CES
Aaker, J. L., Rudd, M., & Mogilner, C. (2011). If money does not make you
happy, consider time. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(2),
126–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.01.004
Ahmad, M., Ahmad, M. S., Hashim, J., & Yusuf, W. S. W. (2016). The role of
religion in higher education funding: Special reference to Hinduism
and Buddhism in Malaysia. Global Journal Al‐Thaqafah, 6(1), 69–74.
https://doi.org/10.7187/GJAT10420160601
Atkinson, W. W. (1908). Reincarnation and the law of Karma: A study of the
old‐new world doctrine of rebirth, and spiritual cause and effect. Yogi
Publication Society.
Basil, D. Z., Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, M. D. (2006). Guilt appeals: The
mediating effect of responsibility. Psychology & Marketing, 23(12),
1035–1054. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20145
Basil, D. Z., Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, M. D. (2008). Guilt and giving: A
process model of empathy and efficacy. Psychology & Marketing,
25(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20200
Boden, M. T., & Berenbaum, H. (2004). The potentially adaptive features
of peculiar beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(4),
707–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.10.004
Bodhi, B. (2005). Dana: The practice of giving. Buddhist Publication Society.
Carlson, M., & Miller, N. (1987). Explanation of the relation between
negative mood and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 102(1), 91–108.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.102.1.91
Chandon, P., Wansink, B., & Laurent, G. (2000). A benefit congruency
framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing,
64(4), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.4.65.18071
Chang, C. T. (2011). Guilt appeals in cause‐related marketing: The
subversive roles of product type and donation magnitude.
International Journal of Advertising, 30(4), 587–616. https://doi.org/
10.2501/IJA-30-4-587-616
Chang, C. T., Chen, P. C., Chu, X. Y., Kung, M. T., & Huang, Y. F. (2018). Is
cash always king? Bundling product‐cause fit and product type in
cause‐related marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 35(12), 990–1009.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21151
Chang, C. T., & Chu, X. Y. (2020). The give and take of cause‐related
marketing: Purchasing cause‐related products licenses consumer
indulgence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(2),
203–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00675-5
Chapman, C. M., Masser, B. M., & Louis, W. R. (2020). Identity motives in
charitable giving: Explanations for charity preferences from a global
donor survey. Psychology & Marketing, 37(9), 1277–1291. https://
doi.org/10.1002/mar.21362
Chin, M. K., Hambrick, D. C., & Treviño, L. K. (2013). Political ideologies of
CEOs: The influence of executives' values on corporate social
responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 197–232.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213486984
Christofi, M., Vrontis, D., Leonidou, E., & Thrassou, A. (2020). Customer
engagement through choice in cause‐related marketing: A potential for
global competitiveness. International Marketing Review, 37(4), 621–650.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-04-2018-0133
Converse, B. A., Risen, J. L., & Carter, T. J. (2012). Investing in Karma:
When wanting promotes helping. Psychological Science, 23(8),
923–930. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612437248
Cotte, J., Coulter, R. A., & Moore, M. (2005). Enhancing or disrupting guilt:
The role of ad credibility and perceived manipulative intent. Journal
of Business Research, 58(3), 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0148-2963(03)00102-4
Coulter, R. H., & Pinto, M. B. (1995). Guilt appeals in advertising: What are
their effects? Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(6), 697–705. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.6.697
DeVoe, S. E., & Pfeffer, J. (2007). When time is money: The effect of
hourly payment on the evaluation of time. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 104(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.obhdp.2006.05.003

CHEN ET AL.
Garfield, J. (2015). Engaging Buddhism: Why it matters to philosophy.
Oxford University Press.
Giving USA. (2020). The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2019.
Giving USA Foundation.
Grumett, D., & Plant, T. (2012). De Lubac, pure land Buddhism, and Roman
Catholicism. Journal of Religion, 92(1), 58–83. https://doi.org/10.
1086/662206
Hasan, I., Kobeissi, N., Liu, L., & Wang, H. (2018). Corporate social
responsibility and firm financial performance: The mediating role of
productivity. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(3), 671–688. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551-016-3066-1
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
process analysis: A regression‐based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford
Press.
Hibbert, S., Smith, A., Davies, A., & Ireland, F. (2007). Guilt appeals:
Persuasion knowledge and charitable giving. Psychology & Marketing,
24(8), 723–742. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20181
Hildebrand, D., DeMotta, Y., Sen, S., & Valenzuela, A. (2017). Consumer
responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) contribution type.
Journal of Consumer Research, 44(4), 738–758. https://doi.org/10.
1093/jcr/ucx063
Ho, C. M., Lin, S. H., & Wyer, R. S. (2021). The downside of purchasing a
servant brand: The effect of servant brand consumption on
consumer charitable behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 38, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21544
Jin, L., & He, Y. (2018). How the frequency and amount of corporate
donations affect consumer perception and behavioral responses.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(6), 1072–1088.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0584-7
Kim, H., Kulow, K., & Kramer, T. (2014). The interactive effect of beliefs in
malleable fate and fateful predictions on choice. Journal of Consumer
Research, 40(6), 1139–1148. https://doi.org/10.1086/674196
Kopalle, P. K., Lehmann, D. R., & Farley, J. U. (2010). Consumer
expectations and culture: The effect of belief in Karma in India.
Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 251–263. https://doi.org/10.
1086/651939
Kramer, T., & Block, L. (2008). Conscious and nonconscious components of
superstitious beliefs in judgment and decision making. Journal of
Consumer Research, 34(6), 783–793. https://doi.org/10.1086/523288
Kramer, T., & Block, L. (2011). Nonconscious effects of specific beliefs on
consumer psychology and choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
21(1), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2010.09.009
Krishan, Y. (1997). The doctrine of Karma: Its origin and development in
Brāhmaṇical, Buddhist, and Jaina traditions. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.
Kulow, K., & Kramer, T. (2016). In pursuit of good Karma: When charitable
appeals to do right go wrong. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(2),
334–353. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw018
Majumdar, A. B. (2015). India's journey with corporate social
responsibility‐what next? Journal of Law and Commerce, 33(2),
165–206. https://doi.org/10.5195/jlc.2015.83
Mick, D. G. (2017). Buddhist psychology: Selected insights, benefits, and
research agenda for consumer psychology. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 27(1), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.04.003
Miller, N., & Carlson, M. (1990). Valid theory‐testing meta‐analyses
further question the negative state relief model of helping.
Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0033-2909.107.2.215
Mogilner, C. (2010). The pursuit of happiness: Time, money, and social
connection. Psychological Science, 21(9), 1348–1354. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0956797610380696
Mogilner, C., & Aaker, J. (2009). “The time vs. money effect”: Shifting
product attitudes and decisions through personal connection.
Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.
1086/597161
15206793, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21642 by Cbua-Consorcio De Bibliotecas, Wiley Online Library on [17/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| 1077
Mogilner, C., Aaker, J. L., & Pennington, G. L. (2008). Time will tell: The
distant appeal of promotion and imminent appeal of prevention.
Journal of Consumer Research, 34(5), 670–681. https://doi.org/10.
1086/521901
Mogilner, C., Chance, Z., & Norton, M. I. (2012). Giving time gives you
time. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1233–1238. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0956797612442551
Pappu, S. S. R. R. (1987). The dimensions of karma. Chanakya Publications.
Reed, A., Aquino, K., & Levy, E. (2007). Moral identity and judgments of
charitable behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 178–193. https://
doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.1.178
Reed, A., Kay, A., Finnel, S., Aquino, K., & Levy, E. (2016). I don't want the
money, I just want your time: How moral identity overcomes the
aversion to giving time to prosocial causes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 110(3), 435–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp
0000058
Renner, S., Lindenmeier, J., Tscheulin, D. K., & Drevs, F. (2013). Guilt
appeals and prosocial behavior: An experimental analysis of the
effects of anticipatory versus reactive guilt appeals on the
effectiveness of blood donor appeals. Journal of Nonprofit & Public
Sector Marketing, 25(3), 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/104951
42.2013.816595
Risen, J. L., & Gilovich, T. (2008). Why people are reluctant to tempt fate.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 293–307. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.293
Rudd, M., Vohs, K. D., & Aaker, J. (2012). Awe expands people's
perception of time, alters decision making, and enhances well‐
being. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1130–1136. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0956797612438731
Sengabira, C. N., Septianto, F., & Northey, G. (2020). Committed to help:
The effects of frequency of corporate donations on luxury brand
evaluations. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 32(3),
681–694. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-06-2019-0366
Wallace, B. (1999). The Buddhist tradition of Samatha: Methods for
refining and examining consciousness. Journal of Consciousness
Studies, 6(2–3), 175–187.
White, C. J. M., Norenzayan, A., & Schaller, M. (2019). The content and
correlates of belief in karma across cultures. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 45(8), 1184–1201. https://doi.org/10.1177/014
6167218808502
Yang, T. (2020). Blue book of philanthropy: Annual report on China's
philanthropy develop (2020). Social Sciences Academic Press.
Yang, Z. (2011). “Lucky” numbers, unlucky consumers. Journal of Socio‐
Economics, 40(5), 692–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2011.
05.008
Zheng, C., Liu, N., Luo, C., & Wang, L. (2021). Effects of the severity of
collective threats on people's donation intention. Psychology &
Marketing, 38(9), 1426–1439. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21536
SUPP ORTING INFO RM ATION
Additional supporting information may be found in the online version
of the article at the publisher’s website.
How to cite this article: Chen, M., Chu, X.‐Y. (Marcos),
Lin, C.‐H., & Yu, S.‐H. (2022). What goes around comes
around: The effect of belief in karma on charitable donation
behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 39, 1065–1077.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21642