The influence of belief in karma and guilt appeals on donation behavior: The moderating role of charitable organizational stereotypes

Charitable giving represents a significant global economic force, making it crucial to understand the psychological drivers of donation behavior. While extensive research has examined various motivating factors, the complex interplay between donor beliefs, appeal strategies, and organizational characteristics remains underexplored. This research addresses this gap across two studies by investigating the interactive effects of belief in karma, charitable appeals, and organizational stereotypes on donation decisions. Study 1 first demonstrates that individuals with a stronger chronic belief in karma show a greater preference to donate to a competent (vs. warm) charitable organization when presented with a guilt (vs. non-guilt) appeal. Study 2 replicates this finding using an experimental manipulation of karma belief in an incentive-compatible design and identifies the underlying mechanism. Results consistently show that when presented with a guilt appeal, individuals with a high belief in karma donate significantly more to a charitable organization stereotyped as competent than to one stereotyped as warm. This preference for competence, driven by a need for an efficacious karmic remedy, is absent in response to non-guilt appeals or among those with a weak belief in karma. A moderated mediation analysis confirms that the "remedy demerit" motivation-a drive to offset past misdeeds-serves as the underlying psychological process. Theoretically, these findings contribute to the literatures on karma belief, guilt appeals, and organizational stereotypes by demonstrating a novel, multi-level interaction. Practically, our results suggest that charities perceived as competent can enhance fundraising by targeting individuals with karma beliefs through carefully constructed guilt appeals.