CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentSocial and Intergroup PsychologyParanormal Experiences and Beliefs

Victim blaming and belief in karma

Open access
White, Cindel J. M., Willard, Aiyana K.·2024·Asian Journal of Social Psychology
DOI 10.1111/ajsp.12654
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Witnessing the suffering of innocent victims can motivate observers to interpret the situation in ways that justify that suffering, such as viewing victims as more personally responsible or possessing negative traits. In a pre‐registered cross‐cultural experiment (N = 831 from India, Singapore and the USA), we tested whether belief in karma—a supernatural force that can be used to explain current misfortune as payback for past misdeeds—affects people's tendencies to blame victims for their misfortune. Participants read and evaluated descriptions of ostensibly innocent victims of misfortune, both before and after thinking about karma. When thinking about karma, participants rated victims as possessing more negative traits, and (in the USA) being less similar to participants themselves, compared to their baseline judgements. Belief in karma also indirectly predicted negative evaluations, due to karma believers' greater perception that victims were personally responsible for their situation. These results are consistent with previously established patterns of victim derogation and show how karma can shape social judgements in a manner that bolsters the perception of a just world where bad things are believed to happen to bad people.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a pre-registered cross-cultural experiment (N = 831 from India, Singapore, and the USA), reminders of karma increased victim blaming and derogation of ostensibly innocent victims. Belief in karma also indirectly predicted more negative evaluations through greater perceived victim responsibility.

Key findings

  • Thinking about karma led participants to rate victims as having less positive traits (aggregated b = −0.31 [−0.41, −0.20], p < 0.001) and less positive impressions (b = −0.34 [−0.48, −0.19], p < 0.001), with a small increase in negative traits (b = 0.12 [0.01, 0.23], p = 0.032).
  • In the USA, the karma frame substantially decreased perceived similarity to the victim (b = −0.41 [−0.70, −0.11], p = 0.006), whereas there was little effect in India (b = −0.03 [−0.20, 0.14], p = 0.73) or Singapore (b = −0.08 [−0.27, 0.11], p = 0.41).
  • Belief in karma was strongly associated with viewing victims as more personally responsible for their situation (b = 0.47 [0.34, 0.61], p < 0.001) and especially responsible due to past-life behaviour (b = 0.81 [0.66, 0.95], p < 0.001).
  • Path models showed indirect associations: belief in karma predicted less positive impressions via responsibility (indirect b = −0.14 [−0.18, −0.11], p < 0.001) and more negative traits via responsibility (indirect b = 0.39 [0.32, 0.46], p < 0.001).

Methods

  • Pre-registered within-subjects experiment: participants read vignettes about ostensibly innocent victims of misfortune, rated victims’ traits, responsibility, and similarity to self, then were instructed to think about karma before evaluating a second victim.
  • Focal sample after exclusions: 317 Hindu Indians, 311 Buddhist Singaporeans, and 203 US participants who reported belief in karma (from 788 US participants total); belief in karma, belief in a just world, and other religious beliefs were measured.
  • Main analyses used multilevel regression models predicting outcomes from belief in karma, karma frame condition, and their interaction, with country fixed effects and random intercepts for participants; path models tested indirect effects via perceived responsibility.

Limitations

  • The paper states the karma manipulation was very explicit and karma framing effects were only modest, perhaps because karmic beliefs are chronically accessible for believers; it also notes the first round of dependent measures may have primed karmic ideas and weakened the manipulation.
  • The paper states future research should use different manipulations, narrower question sets, between-subjects designs, or subtler/naturalistic reminders, and should compare more disparate cultural groups beyond English-speaking computer users.
  • Evident from the text: individual-difference associations between belief in karma and victim evaluations are correlational, and the US focal sample was restricted to karma believers, limiting generalization to non-believers or the broader US population.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ajsp.12654

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

8 of 46 cited sources checked · 4 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Individual differences in belief in karma and belief in a just world are only moderately correlated.

    “Beliefs about karma may partly reflect intuitions about fairness that arise from general belief in a just world (Baumard & Chevallier, 2012), but individual differences in belief in karma and belief in a just world are only moderately correlated (Chobthamkit et al., 2022;White, Norenzayan, et al., 2019), and explicit belief in karma is also shaped by particular religious cultures and cognitive”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Baumard & Chevallier, 2012 source

      Baumard and Chevallier are cited for the sentence’s first clause, not for the moderate correlation, which is attributed to Chobthamkit et al. and White et al. The Introduction links intuitions of immanent justice to a sense of fairness, and the later discussion identifies karma as a belief with that moral content. Our copy does not establish that those intuitions arise from a general belief in a just world. (LLM, conf=0.80)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Chobthamkit et al., 2022 source
    • cites White, Norenzayan, et al., 2019 source
  • Premisecitation

    Indian and East Asian participants are more likely to attribute circumstances to the situation rather than the person.

    “Participants from the United States tend to be more willing to focus on internal explanations for all sorts of behaviours, including misfortune (Gilbert & Malone, 1995;Ross, 1977), whereas Indian and East Asian participants are more likely to attribute circumstances to the situation rather than the person (e.g.Choi & Nisbett, 1998;Miller, 1984;Miyamoto & Kitayama, 2002;Morris & Peng, 1994;Norenz”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Choi & Nisbett, 1998 source
    • cites Miller, 1984

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Miyamoto & Kitayama, 2002 source
  • Premisecitation

    Indians who more strongly endorse belief in karma were also more likely to endorse the perception that inequalities due to the social caste people are born into are more legitimate.

    “For example, Cotterill et al. (2014) documented that Indians who more strongly endorse belief in karma were also more likely to endorse the perception that inequalities due to the social caste people are born into are more legitimate, and karma believers were less supportive of policies to alleviate caste-based discrimination, consistent with other evidence that religious systems can legitimate”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cotterill et al. (2014) source

      The Discussion (page unavailable) says Karmic beliefs make caste-based differences seem legitimate, and the Results (page unavailable) link stronger Karmic beliefs to greater support for hierarchy-enhancing policies. The study sampled 385 Indian university students and did not report a separate measure showing that stronger believers were more likely to perceive caste inequality as legitimate; that part is an interpretation of its findings. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Karma believers were less supportive of policies to alleviate caste-based discrimination.

    “For example, Cotterill et al. (2014) documented that Indians who more strongly endorse belief in karma were also more likely to endorse the perception that inequalities due to the social caste people are born into are more legitimate, and karma believers were less supportive of policies to alleviate caste-based discrimination, consistent with other evidence that religious systems can legitimate”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cotterill et al. (2014) source
  • Interpretationcitation

    Belief in karma may be most likely to encourage victim blaming in situations where a victim's past misdeeds or negative personality traits are highly salient, such as when observers are aware that a victim's current suffering resembles past suffering they have caused to others.

    “Belief in karma may be most likely to encourage victim blaming in situations where a victim's past misdeeds or negative personality traits are highly salient, such as when observers are aware that a victim's current suffering resembles past suffering they have caused to others (e.g.Taylor et al., 2022;White et al., 2020;White, Norenzayan, et al., 2019).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Taylor et al., 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites White et al., 2020 source

      Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites White, Norenzayan, et al., 2019 source
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 10
  • May combine two claims. 38

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The pattern of just-world motivation has been primarily documented in Western cultures, with some cross-cultural samples.

    “This pattern of just-world motivation has been primarily documented in Western cultures, with some cross-cultural samples (e.g.Chobthamkit et al., 2022;Furnham, 1993;Grimes et al., 2015;Kaplan, 2012), as part of general motivational systems in secular participants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Chobthamkit et al., 2022 source
    • cites Furnham, 1993 source
    • cites Grimes et al., 2015 source

      The Abstract (p. 3) supports citing this paper as an example of a cross-ethnic study of just-world-related beliefs: it compares Māori with non-Māori and uses US ethnic comparisons as a benchmark. It does not establish that just-world motivation has been documented primarily in Western cultures, or that the participants were secular or studied as part of a general motivational system. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants in the USA rated the target as significantly less responsible in general, and due to past life behaviour, compared to participants in India or Singapore.

    “There were also mean differences between countries, such that participants in the USA rated the target as significantly less responsible in general, and due to past life behaviour, compared to participants in India or Singapore.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The samples from India, Singapore, and the USA are representative of their cultural groups for the purpose of testing cross-cultural generalizability.
    • Rests on an assumption: The vignettes are perceived by participants as describing innocent victims who did not cause their misfortune.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Thinking about karma led to more negative impressions, less positive traits and slightly more negative traits.

    “The karma framing manipulation modified these effects: Thinking about karma led to more negative impressions, less positive traits and slightly more negative traits.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The vignettes are perceived by participants as describing innocent victims who did not cause their misfortune.
    • Rests on an assumption: The karma framing manipulation successfully induces participants to think about karma while making judgements.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Belief in karma predicted more positive impressions, more positive traits as well as more negative traits ascribed to each victim.

    “In models aggregated across all three countries, depicted in Table 3 and Figure 2, belief in karma predicted more positive impressions, more positive traits as well as more negative traits ascribed to each victim.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The vignettes are perceived by participants as describing innocent victims who did not cause their misfortune.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Thinking about karma only slightly increased responsibility ratings and did not significantly increase past life responsibility, except for small increases at very high levels of karma belief.

    “However, thinking about karma only slightly increased responsibility ratings and did not significantly increase past life responsibility, except for small increases at very high levels of karma belief.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The vignettes are perceived by participants as describing innocent victims who did not cause their misfortune.
    • Rests on an assumption: The karma framing manipulation successfully induces participants to think about karma while making judgements.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    We tested the results across samples from the USA, India and Singapore, and often found similar patterns, despite previously documented differences in attributional styles and the cultural histories of karma beliefs in these countries.

    “We tested the results across samples from the USA, India and Singapore, and often found similar patterns, despite previously documented differences in attributional styles and the cultural histories of karma beliefs in these countries.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the combined analysis, there is a negative indirect association between belief in karma and impressions, and a positive indirect association between belief in karma and negative traits, via perceptions of responsibility.

    “As depicted in Figure 4, in the combined analysis, there is a negative indirect association between belief in karma and impressions, indirect effect b = -0.14[-0.18, -0.11], p < 0.001 and positive indirect association between belief in karma and negative traits, indirect effect b = 0.39 [0.32, 0.46], p < 0.001, due to people who strongly believe in karma being more likely to view the victim as”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The vignettes are perceived by participants as describing innocent victims who did not cause their misfortune.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The same pattern of path results was found when simultaneously predicting responsibility from karma belief, belief in a just world and COVID-related fears and stressors, all of which predicted higher ratings of responsibility, and thereby indirectly predicted more negative judgements of the victim.

    “The same pattern of path results was also found when simultaneously predicting responsibility from karma belief, belief in a just world and COVID-related fears and stressors, all of which predicted higher ratings of responsibility, and thereby indirectly predicted more negative judgements of the victim (see Table S9).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The vignettes are perceived by participants as describing innocent victims who did not cause their misfortune.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In this study, the association between karma and the derogation of innocent victims was modest in magnitude and most robust for the karma framing effect, not merely individual differences in karma belief.

    “However, in this study, the association between karma and the derogation of innocent victims were modest in magnitude and most robust for the karma framing effect, not merely individual differences in karma belief.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The karma frame manipulation successfully activated karmic thinking in participants.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Belief in karma predicted more positive impressions and positive traits (although not significantly in the USA) and significantly more negative traits in all three countries.

    “When looking at each country separately, belief in karma similarly predicted more positive impressions and positive traits (although not significantly in the USA) and significantly more negative traits in all three countries.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The samples from India, Singapore, and the USA are representative of their cultural groups for the purpose of testing cross-cultural generalizability.
    • Rests on an assumption: The vignettes are perceived by participants as describing innocent victims who did not cause their misfortune.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants who believe more strongly in karma were more likely to rate the victim as possessing negative personality traits, but they were also more likely to rate the victim as possessing positive personality traits and making a positive impression.

    “Participants who believe more strongly in karma were more likely to rate the victim as possessing negative personality traits, but they were also more likely to rate the victim as possessing positive personality traits and making a positive impression.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Perceived responsibility for the misfortune predicted less positive impressions and more negative traits.

    “perceived responsibility for the misfortune predicted less positive impressions and more negative traits”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The karma frame elicited less positive impressions and less positive traits, although thinking about karma did not significantly affect negative traits in any sample.

    “The karma frame also elicited less positive impressions, b USA = -0.21[-0.47, 0.06], p = 0.13, b India = -0.38 [-0.63, -0.13], p = 0.003, b Singapore = -0.39[-0.62, -0.15], p = 0.001 and less positive traits, b USA = -0.35[-0.58, -0.13], p = 0.002, b India = -0.25 [-0.43, -0.08], p = 0.004, b Singapore = -0.33 [-0.49, -0.17], p < 0.001, although thinking about karma did not significantly affect”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The vignettes are perceived by participants as describing innocent victims who did not cause their misfortune.
    • Rests on an assumption: The karma framing manipulation successfully induces participants to think about karma while making judgements.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Belief in karma and belief in a just world are strongly but imperfectly correlated as individual differences (r = 0.55, p < 0.001 in the whole sample, r = 0.41 in the USA, r = 0.41 in Singapore, r = 0.69 in India).

    “Belief in karma and belief in a just world are strongly but imperfectly correlated as individual differences (r = 0.55, p < 0.001 in the whole sample, r = 0.41 in the USA, r = 0.41 in Singapore, r = 0.69 in India)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In contrast, responsibility predicted more positive traits and greater similarity in India, and was not significantly associated with either outcome in Singapore.

    “In contrast, responsibility predicted more positive traits and greater similarity in India, ps <0.041 and was not significantly associated with either outcome in Singapore, ps >0.36.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The samples from India, Singapore, and the USA are representative of their cultural groups for the purpose of testing cross-cultural generalizability.
    • Rests on an assumption: The vignettes are perceived by participants as describing innocent victims who did not cause their misfortune.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Belief in karma predicted higher ratings of similarity to the victim, but the karma frame decreased perceived similarity to the victim, with no significant interaction between belief and frame condition.

    “In models aggregated across all three countries (Table 2 and Figure 3), belief in karma predicted higher ratings of similarity to the victim, but the karma frame decreased perceived similarity to the victim, with no significant interaction between belief and frame condition.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The vignettes are perceived by participants as describing innocent victims who did not cause their misfortune.
    • Rests on an assumption: The karma framing manipulation successfully induces participants to think about karma while making judgements.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Only in the USA did perceived responsibility predict less positive trait ratings, resulting in a negative indirect effect.

    “Only in the USA did perceived responsibility predict less positive trait ratings, b = -0.15[-0.21, -0.08], p < 0.001, resulting in a negative indirect effect, b = -0.10[-0.16, -0.04], p = 0.002.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The samples from India, Singapore, and the USA are representative of their cultural groups for the purpose of testing cross-cultural generalizability.
    • Rests on an assumption: The vignettes are perceived by participants as describing innocent victims who did not cause their misfortune.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Only in the USA did responsibility predict less similarity to the victim, resulting in a negative indirect effect.

    “Likewise, only in the USA did responsibility predict less similarity to the victim, b = -0.11[-0.02, -0.02], p = 0.018, resulting in a negative indirect effect, b = -0.07[-0.14, 0.00], p = 0.041.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The samples from India, Singapore, and the USA are representative of their cultural groups for the purpose of testing cross-cultural generalizability.
    • Rests on an assumption: The vignettes are perceived by participants as describing innocent victims who did not cause their misfortune.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was a robust indirect association between belief in karma and derogation, such that participants who more strongly believe in karma rated the victim as more personally responsible for their misfortune and perceived responsibility predicted less positive impressions and more negative traits.

    “There was a robust indirect association between belief and derogation, such that participants who more strongly believe in karma rated the victim as more personally responsible for their misfortune (due to behaviour in this life or a previous lifetime) and perceived responsibility for the misfortune predicted less positive impressions and more negative traits.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was little effect of the karma frame on perceived similarity in India (b = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.14], p = 0.73) or Singapore (b = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.11], p = 0.41).

    “whereas there was little effect of the karma frame in India, b = -0.03[-0.20, 0.14], p = 0.73, or Singapore, b = -0.08 [-0.27, 0.11], p = 0.41.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The karma frame manipulation successfully activated karmic thinking in participants.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Just world belief was also positively associated with greater positive impressions (b = 0.58, 95% CI [0.43, 0.72]), positive traits (b = 0.55, 95% CI [0.43, 0.67]), and negative traits (b = 0.37, 95% CI [0.23, 0.52]), and greater perceived similarity to the victim (b = 0.42, 95% CI [0.26, 0.57], ps < 0.001).

    “Just world belief was also positively associated with greater positive impressions, b = 0.58 [0.43, 0.72], positive traits, b = 0.55 [0.43, 0.67], and negative traits, b = 0.37[0.23,0.52], and greater perceived similarity to the victim, b = 0.42 [0.26, 0.57], ps < 0.001.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The karma frame was negatively associated with positive impression (b = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.48, -0.19], p < 0.001), positive traits (b = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.41, -0.20], p < 0.001), and similarity (b = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.26, -0.02], p = 0.020), and positively associated with negative traits (b = 0.12, 95% CI [0.01, 0.23], p = 0.032).

    “Karma frame -0.34 (-0.48, -0.19) <0.001 -0.31 (-0.41, -0.20) <0.001 0.12 (0.01, 0.23) 0.032 -0.14 (-0.26, -0.02) 0.020”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The karma frame manipulation successfully activated karmic thinking in participants.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The karma frame reduced positive impressions (b = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.48, -0.19]), positive traits (b = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.41, -0.20], p < 0.001), increased negative traits (b = 0.12, 95% CI [0.01, 0.23], p = 0.032), and reduced similarity (b = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.26, -0.02], p = 0.020).

    “[0.00, 0.31], p = 0.047, reduced positive impressions, b = -0.43[-0.48, -0.19], and positive traits, b = -0.31[-0.41, -0.20], p < 0.001, and increased negative traits, b = 0.12 [0.01, 0.23], p = 0.032, and reduced similarity, b = -0.14[-0.26, -0.02], p = 0.020.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The karma frame manipulation successfully activated karmic thinking in participants.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Belief in karma was positively associated with positive impression (b = 0.42, 95% CI [0.30, 0.54], p < 0.001), positive traits (b = 0.40, 95% CI [0.30, 0.50], p < 0.001), negative traits (b = 0.36, 95% CI [0.23, 0.48], p < 0.001), and similarity (b = 0.42, 95% CI [0.29, 0.55], p < 0.001).

    “Belief in karma 0.42 (0.30, 0.54) <0.001 0.40 (0.30, 0.50) <0.001 0.36 (0.23, 0.48) <0.001 0.42 (0.29, 0.55) <0.001”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The interaction between belief in karma and karma frame was not significant for positive impression (b = -0.11, p = 0.103), positive traits (b = 0.00, p = 0.951), negative traits (b = 0.07, p = 0.179), or similarity (b = 0.05, p = 0.377).

    “Belief × frame -0.11 (-0.25, 0.02) 0.103 0.00 (-0.10, 0.10) 0.951 0.07 (-0.03, 0.18) 0.179 0.05 (-0.06, 0.17) 0.377”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The karma frame manipulation successfully activated karmic thinking in participants.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Country differences: Singapore had lower positive impression (b = -1.14), positive traits (b = -0.98), and similarity (b = -1.43) than reference; USA had lower negative traits (b = -1.93) and similarity (b = -1.32).

    “Country (Singapore) -1.14 (-1.38, -0.90) <0.001 -0.98 (-1.19, -0.76) <0.001 -0.26 (-0.52, 0.00) 0.053 -1.43 (-1.71, -1.15) <0.001 Country (USA) 0.13 (-0.14, 0.39) 0.344 -0.2 (-0.44, 0.04) 0.107 -1.93 (-2.22,-1.63) <0.001 -1.32 (-1.63, -1.01) <0.001”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    People are motivated to maintain a view that the world is just by re-appraising the suffering of ostensibly innocent victims to make bad experiences seem more deserved.

    “Classic research on belief in a Just World (Lerner, 1980;Lerner & Miller, 1978) argues that people are motivated to maintain a view that the world is just by re-appraising the suffering of ostensibly innocent victims to make bad experiences seem more deserved.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lerner, 1980 source
    • cites Lerner & Miller, 1978 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Belief in karma is a law of cause and effect through which (im)moral actions have morally congruent outcomes, both within one's current lifetime and, within the religious conception of karma, across multiple lifetimes and across the cycle of reincarnation.

    “This expectation is especially central to belief in karma, a law of cause and effect through which (im) moral actions have morally congruent outcomes, both within one's current lifetime and, within the religious conception of karma, across multiple lifetimes and across the cycle of reincarnation (Bronkhorst, 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bronkhorst, 2011 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Previous studies have documented that belief in karma predicts attributions of personal responsibility for misfortune.

    “While previous studies have documented that belief in karma predicts attributions of personal responsibility for misfortune, little is known about the downstream consequences of these attributions for social judgements or behaviour towards victims of misfortune, which we focus on in this study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Just-world motivation is done by derogating the victim or perceiving them as dissimilar from oneself.

    “This is done by derogating the victim or perceiving them as dissimilar from oneself, and therefore not subject to the fair processes that determine one's own life (Hafer & Bègue, 2005;Lerner & Simmons, 1966).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hafer & Bègue, 2005 source
    • cites Lerner & Simmons, 1966 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Karma is central to the worldview of several Asian religious traditions, including Hinduism and Buddhism, while also being endorsed among many people in Western Christian and non-religious populations.

    “Karma is central to the worldview of several Asian religious traditions, including Hinduism and Buddhism, while also being endorsed among many people in Western Christian and non-religious populations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Just world motivations may underly the intuitive appeal of karma belief, both in the religions that support karma and in the ease with which this idea has spread beyond these religious borders.

    “This supports the possibility that just world motivations may underly the intuitive appeal of karma belief, both in the religions that support karma and in the ease with which this idea has spread beyond these religious borders.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The sampling strategy, methods and planned analyses were preregistered on the Open Science Framework prior to conducting the study.

    “Prior to conducting this study, the sampling strategy, methods and planned analyses were preregistered on the Open Science Framework.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The final sample size had at least 80% power to detect correlations of r > 0.09 within the whole sample, or r > 0.19 within each country, and between-condition differences of d > 0.09 across the whole sample or d > 0.19 within each country.

    “This final sample size had at least 80% power to correlations of r > 0.09 within the whole sample, or r > 0.19 within each country, and between-condition differences of d > 0.09 across the whole sample or d > 0.19 within each country.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This tendency may help explain why positive and negative trait attributions were only negatively correlated in the American sample and were uncorrelated or positively correlated in Singapore or India.

    “This tendency may help explain why positive and negative trait attributions were only negatively correlated in the American sample and were uncorrelated or positively correlated in Singapore or India.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Both less positive trait ratings and less similarity to the victim have been documented in secular cultural contexts as a way that people maintain the view that the world is just, even when bad things happen to ostensibly innocent people.

    “Both of these responses have been documented in secular cultural contexts as a way that people maintain the view that the world is just, even when bad things happen to ostensibly innocent people (Bizer et al., 2012;Correia & Vala, 2003;Hafer, 2000;Mendonça et al., 2016;Tepe et al., 2020).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bizer et al., 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Correia & Vala, 2003 source
    • cites Hafer, 2000 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Personal justice motives likely contribute to the enduring plausibility of supernatural beliefs, which contributes to their spread alongside additional group-level benefits as karmic beliefs also encourage people to behave less selfishly and more generously towards others.

    “These personal justice motives likely contribute to the enduring plausibility of these supernatural beliefs, which contributes to their spread alongside additional group-level benefits as karmic beliefs also encourage people to behave less selfishly and more generously towards others, in order to garner karmic rewards for themselves (Fitouchi & Singh, 2022;Laurin & Kay, 2017).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Fitouchi & Singh, 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Laurin & Kay, 2017 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The difference in similarity effects may be driven by Americans' greater self-enhancement motives: American participants may not want to see themselves as similar to those with negative characteristics that make them susceptible to karmic punishments, in order to maintain a positive view of themselves.

    “This difference may be driven by Americans' greater selfenhancement motives: American participants may not want to see themselves as similar to those with negative characteristics that make them susceptible to karmic punishments, in order to maintain a positive view of themselves.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Belief in karma can have both positive direct and negative indirect effects on victim derogation, although these patterns appear most strongly in the United States.

    “These results suggest that belief in karma can have both positive direct and negative indirect effects on victim derogation, although these patterns appear most strongly in the United States.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The samples from India, Singapore, and the USA are representative of their cultural groups for the purpose of testing cross-cultural generalizability.
    • Rests on an assumption: The vignettes are perceived by participants as describing innocent victims who did not cause their misfortune.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The unique elements of karmic causality-which can play out across long timescales and across cycles of reincarnation-may actually make karma a better way of understanding suffering, because it can explain why harm happens to seemingly innocent victims through no immediate fault of their own.

    “The unique elements of karmic causality-which can play out across long timescales and across cycles of reincarnation-may actually make karma a better way of understanding suffering, because it can explain why harm happens to seemingly innocent victims through no immediate fault of their own.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The final sample excluded participants who failed to complete the survey, failed an attention check, failed a CAPTCHA, or reported not paying attention.

    “The final sample excluded participants who failed to complete the survey did not correctly answer 'If you know how to speak English, please select five as your answer to this question', failed a CAPTCHA, or reported that they did not pay attention, did not take the survey seriously or were otherwise distracted while completing the survey.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The present findings indicate that beliefs about karma can elicit similar justice motives, which may have negative impacts on responses to people in need.

    “The present findings indicate that beliefs about karma can elicit similar justice motives, which may have negative impacts on responses to people in need.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Narratives about karma may provide one culturally supported way to reassure believers that their efforts and prosociality will be justly rewarded with good outcomes and to legitimate societal inequalities through which some people thrive while others want.

    “Narratives about karma may provide one culturally supported way to reassure believers that their efforts and prosociality will be justly rewarded with good outcomes and to legitimate societal inequalities through which some people thrive while others want.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
43 of 43

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Little is known about the downstream consequences of karma-based attributions for social judgements or behaviour towards victims of misfortune.

    “While previous studies have documented that belief in karma predicts attributions of personal responsibility for misfortune, little is known about the downstream consequences of these attributions for social judgements or behaviour towards victims of misfortune, which we focus on in this study.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The samples from India, Singapore, and the USA are representative of their cultural groups for the purpose of testing cross-cultural generalizability.

    “To test the generalizability of our effects across cultural groups, we conducted the experiment simultaneously with Hindu participants from India, Buddhists from Singapore, and a general sample from the USA (not filtered based on religion).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The vignettes are perceived by participants as describing innocent victims who did not cause their misfortune.

    “In each case, the victim did not directly cause the negative outcome and experienced enduring suffering due to physical and emotional trauma.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The karma framing manipulation successfully induces participants to think about karma while making judgements.

    “After reading and evaluating one vignette, all participants were instructed to think about karma before evaluating a second target, randomly chosen from the set of victims they had not previously seen.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The karma frame manipulation successfully activated karmic thinking in participants.

    “when thinking about karma”
5 of 5

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Similarity coefficient lies outside its reported confidence interval

    Minor

    The reported estimate is −0.11, but its stated 95% confidence interval runs from −0.02 to −0.02. The interval cannot contain that estimate.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Carlsmith K. M., 2008, Advances in experimental social psychology, 193
  2. Dalbert C., 1987, Glaube an eine gerechte welt als Motiv: Validierungskorrelate zweier Skalen [Belief in a just world as motive: Validity correlates of two scales], Psychologische Beiträge, 29, 596
  3. Laurin K., 2017, Advances in experimental social psychology, 201
  4. Nasser R., 2005, Causal attributions for poverty among Indian youth, Current Research in Social Psychology, 11

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
White, C. J. M., & Willard, A. K.
Affiliations
  • York University (CA)
  • Brunel University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
White, Cindel J. M.
ORCID
Venue
Asian Journal of Social Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-09-23
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
1011-1024
ISSN
  • 1367-2223 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-839X
DOI
10.1111/ajsp.12654
OpenAlex
W4402728752
Semantic Scholar
bdc5dd856c130a4d4fde99c23eeeaae3e6668ded
Cited by
4
References
63
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1
FWCI
0.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Asian Journal Of Social Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) (Brunel University London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
Keywords
victim blaming, victim derogation, personal responsibility, belief in a just world, supernatural beliefs, cross-cultural comparison, social judgment, misfortune

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-23.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-23.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review