A new study reveals that people often view their own experiences as deserving of good karma, while interpreting others’ misfortunes as justified punishment, highlighting a self-serving bias in our belief in cosmic justice.
Key Points at a Glance
- Individuals tend to associate their positive experiences with good karma.
- Others’ negative experiences are often seen as deserved bad karma.
- This bias reflects a psychological tendency to view oneself favorably.
- Belief in karma can influence judgments and social interactions.
A recent study conducted by researchers at York University, published in the journal Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, delves into the self-serving nature of people’s belief in karma. The research found that individuals often interpret their own positive experiences as rewards of good karma, while viewing others’ misfortunes as deserved consequences of bad karma. This asymmetry in perception reveals a psychological mechanism that reinforces self-esteem while preserving a sense of moral order in an unpredictable world.
The study, which surveyed over 2,000 participants across diverse demographic backgrounds, asked individuals to reflect on situations involving both themselves and others, and to assess whether karma played a role. A clear pattern emerged: when explaining their own successes, participants were quick to attribute them to past good deeds, generosity, or ethical behavior. In contrast, when asked about the misfortunes of others—such as a job loss, illness, or personal setback—responses often suggested that these outcomes were “probably deserved” or karmically justified due to unseen wrongdoing.
This dichotomy is emblematic of what psychologists refer to as the “self-serving bias”—a tendency to interpret information in ways that favor the self. What is striking in this study is how this bias is not only applied to immediate events but extends to metaphysical beliefs, influencing how people interpret cosmic justice. Karma, often understood as a spiritual force that balances the moral scales of the universe, becomes a psychological tool for affirming one’s own righteousness while subtly casting judgment on others.
One possible explanation, the researchers suggest, lies in the human need for coherence. Life is full of randomness and inequity, and belief systems like karma offer a reassuring narrative: that good people are rewarded and bad people punished, even if not immediately. For the individual, viewing oneself as a recipient of good karma provides emotional reinforcement and a perceived link between morality and outcome. But when applied to others, this same belief system can act as a cognitive shortcut—replacing empathy with presumption.
This has serious implications for how people engage with one another socially. When we assume that someone’s suffering is karmic retribution, we may become less likely to offer help or support. Such assumptions, even when unconscious, can feed into social stigmas, reinforce inequality, and reduce compassion—especially toward marginalized or disadvantaged individuals. The belief in karma, while promoting ethical behavior in some cases, can also become a barrier to solidarity and mutual understanding.
The study also touches on how these beliefs intersect with broader cultural narratives. In many Western societies, the secular adoption of karmic ideas—through phrases like “what goes around comes around”—has integrated into common moral reasoning. However, this often strips karma from its original religious and philosophical context, turning it into a tool of moral judgment rather than a holistic path of growth and accountability. By simplifying karma into a cause-and-effect moral calculator, people risk misapplying its principles in ways that foster superiority and isolation rather than introspection and connection.
Another important dimension highlighted by the research is the difference between believing in karma as a personal motivator versus using it as a social lens. While believing that good actions yield good outcomes can encourage prosocial behavior, using karmic logic to explain others’ lives can entrench existing biases. For example, someone may justify systemic poverty, illness, or failure as karmic justice, thereby absolving themselves—and society—from the responsibility to act.
In a world increasingly polarized by ideology, economics, and belief systems, the findings from York University call for a more critical and compassionate engagement with the moral frameworks we use to interpret the world. Recognizing the self-serving nature of karmic bias doesn’t necessarily mean abandoning the concept altogether, but rather applying it with humility and awareness. By acknowledging the complexity of people’s lives and the randomness of many outcomes, we can begin to replace judgment with curiosity, and assumption with empathy.
Ultimately, the study is not just a commentary on how we interpret karma—it is a mirror reflecting how we see ourselves and others. And in a time when empathy is more urgent than ever, that reflection is worth a closer look.
