The impact of using negative versus positive Karma framing in donation appeals at grocery checkouts on the facilitating store's outcomes

Abstract

There has been an increasing trend of soliciting donations for a store's charity partner by cashiers at grocery checkouts. A number of such charity appeals use the philosophical concept of Karma, which suggests equivalent outcomes to an individual's actions. Even though this concept is inherently neutral in stating the corresponding outcomes to both types of actions (i.e., good or bad), a majority of donation appeals use Karma's negative tenant alone (e.g., “when you don't donate, someone in your neighborhood goes without food”). Where previous message‐framing research has mainly focused on donation outcomes (e.g., pledged‐dollars), this research is a first of its kind to not only investigate the impact of using Karma's negative (vs. positive) tenants in prosocial messaging separately, but to also assess its effects on the largely‐ignored but critical store outcomes of purchase satisfaction and revisit intentions. Results from four scenario‐based experiments demonstrate that using a negative (vs. positive) Karma connotation in donation appeals at grocery checkouts significantly lowers consumers' purchase satisfaction at the store as well as their intentions to revisit the store in the future (with no major impact on the donation outcomes). Following established research on negativity bias, affect and moral consciousness, this research also shows that instead of emotions, lowered consumer mood mediates these effects. Furthermore, it evidences that the negative effect of using Karma's negative (vs. positive) connotation in checkout donation solicitations on the store outcomes attenuates when consumers' grocery basket consists of more hedonic (vs. utilitarian) products based on the former's mood‐uplifting properties.

Instant Karma: How the Karmic-Investment Mindset Affects Customer Engagement With Corporate Charitable Giving Requests

“…Kulow and Kramer (2016) show that karma believers respond more favorably to other-serving charitable appeals, but they did not explain why the effect was limited to donations of time (vs. money). In a similar vein, Sharma (2021) proposed mood as a potential mediator, but the study findings failed to detect a significant effect of karma framing (positive vs. negative) on donation likelihood.…”

“…For instance, Kulow and Kramer (2016) found that karma believers favor charitable appeals highlighting other-benefits (vs. self-benefits) for donations of time. In the grocery checkout context, Sharma (2021) showed that charitable appeals with negative (vs. positive) karmarelated messages led to lower purchase satisfaction and revisit intention, but did not influence donation likelihood. Previous research has largely ignored the psychological mechanism behind karma believers' donation behaviors.…”

“…Prior research has long established that irrational beliefs, such as peculiar beliefs (Kramer & Block, 2011), magical thinking (St. James et al, 2011), superstition (Mowen et al, 2003), and fatalism (Kim et al, 2014) can influence consumers' decision-making processes. Although karma is a subtype of irrational beliefs, research linking karma beliefs and prosocial behaviors has only recently emerged (Converse et al, 2012;Kulow & Kramer, 2016;Sharma, 2021). Moreover, the findings are mixed.…”

“…Prior research demonstrates the effects of karma beliefs on consumers’ brand/product evaluation (Kopalle et al, 2010; Sharma, 2021), word of mouth (Valenzuela et al, 2018), excessive consumption (Chen et al, 2019), green purchase (Chairy & Syahrivar, 2020), and prosocial behaviors (Converse et al, 2012; Kulow & Kramer, 2016). One important way to earn karma points is via prosocial behaviors, which refer to activities benefitting others and/or the greater good (Penner et al, 2005).…”

“…Since karma beliefs emphasize “ethical causation,” one important way to earn karma points is via prosocial behaviors. Research linking karma beliefs with prosocial behaviors has emerged in recent years (e.g., Chairy & Syahrivar, 2020; Converse et al, 2012; Kulow & Kramer, 2016; Sharma, 2021). However, the studies have yielded mixed results.…”