Consumers who say they believe in karma are more likely to forgive companies that behave immorally than those who don’t, according to a West Virginia University marketing expert.
Studies conducted by Kylie Vo, teaching assistant professor at the WVU John Chambers College of Business and Economics, demonstrate that when a consumer thinks the universe will right a corporate wrong, that person tends not to harbor negative feelings toward the corporation and probably will refrain from consumer activism like boycotts.
“As consumers grow more informed and socially conscious, digital media and social networks are increasingly motivating moral outrage about ‘brand transgressions’ like the 2018 Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal, which led to a loss of trust among 51% of users, or the #DeleteUber movement, during which consumers boycotted Uber over claims that the company profited from taxi strikes,” Vo said.
“Whether the transgressions are ‘moral,’ as in the case of labor malpractice, or ‘non-moral,’ as with shoddy manufacturing, they can escalate and severely damage consumer-brand relationships and brand value.”
But Vo found that people who believe in karma aren’t as concerned about brands’ moral transgressions as they are about non-moral ones.
“The phrase ‘You reap what you sow’ encapsulates the cause-and-effect essence of the karmic belief system, in which actions yield corresponding outcomes,” she explained. “More than 65% of Americans express strong beliefs in karma, and more than 75% of people in south and southeast Asia say it’s foundational to their worldview. Karmic beliefs affect daily behaviors and decisions — because of karma, a consumer might justify a luxury purchase or might try to reduce overconsumption.”
When consumers believe karma will punish a bad deed, they’re not motivated to penalize the wrongdoing themselves, Vo said. In several studies, she demonstrated that people with stronger karmic beliefs were more forgiving, with fewer negative attitudes toward morally transgressing brands, and were less likely to boycott them.
Vo and her coauthor presented the findings in a paper for The Journal of the Association for Consumer Research.
“Consumers may not be so lenient when it comes to non-moral transgressions like defective products or misleading claims, which directly jeopardize consumer experience,” Vo said.
“When products don’t meet functional expectations, consumers feel personally affected and are concerned about their safety. Take Mattel, which experienced a significant sales decline after lead was discovered in its toys. Consumer questions about the brand’s competence hurt Mattel independently of the moral implications of that mistake. Severe non-moral transgressions like lead in children’s toys diminish marketing effectiveness, reduce sales and erode market shares regardless of karmic beliefs.”
For consumers who believe in karma, forgiving brands’ moral transgressions is also important because they want to accumulate good karma of their own through the morally benevolent act of forgiveness. Vo’s research demonstrated that the stronger an individual’s belief in karmic forces, the more likely that person is to forgive a brand guilty of moral wrongdoing.
“Understanding how belief in karma affects consumers’ responses to brand transgressions allows marketers to strategize around messaging that will resonate with those beliefs, emphasizing themes like good deeds or cosmic justice,” Vo said.
“Brands that have transgressed need to immediately identify whether the issue was moral or non-moral. For non-moral wrongdoing, the brand’s message can be universal and focus on its corrective actions, but for moral wrongdoing, our work indicates that the brand’s response should be more nuanced.”
