Does Karma Moderate the Association between Moral Self-Perception and Optimism
Bias?
Bachelor Thesis: Economic Psychology (550012-B-12)
Department: Social Psychology
Tilburg University
Author: Eveline Teeuwen
ANR: 566225
SNR: 2000538
Supervisor: How Hwee Ong
Second Assessor: Dr. Olga Stavrova
Date: 29-06-2020
OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
Abstract
The optimism bias is a widespread and prevalent positive illusion. There are many theories about underlying functioning of this bias. In this study is expected that feeling moral superior will lead to a stronger optimism bias and that this effect will increase when people belief in karma. People belief that their moral behaviour will be rewarded in the future due to karma, which creates a positive future outlook. In total 101 participants participated in this study. Moral self-perception was manipulated and Likert scales were used to measure moral self-perception, belief in karma and the optimism bias. No significant manipulation effect from moral self-perception was found, so this was not integrated in the study. The results did show an optimism bias and a moral superiority illusion and a medium to high correlation between the two concepts (r= .35). Also, no significant moderation effect from belief in karma was found but the regression analysis did implicate an effect from moral self- perception on the optimism bias. So, the predictor might (partly) explain why people show an optimism bias. The biggest limitation was the insignificant manipulation of moral self- perception, suggested is to use a bigger sample size and adding emotional feelings to the manipulation. Another limitation was the insignificant moderation effect from belief in karma, for future research is suggested to use the concept ‘belief in a just world’ because this might be a better fit to a western population with Christianity as main religion.
Keywords: optimism bias, unrealistic optimism, moral self-perception, moral superiority, belief in karma
2 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
People have the tendency to make optimistic predictions about their future (Weinstein,
1980). Although optimism can have positive consequences, such as hope and goal persistency
(Armor, & Taylor,1998), excessive optimism can have negative consequences, such as underestimating risk and lack of precautionary behaviour (Sharot, 2011).
The present research is designed to gain more knowledge about possible explanations for the optimism bias to occur. Expected is that when people belief to be more moral they are more optimistic about their future and this effect will increase when people belief in karma.
Moral deeds in the present will be rewarded in the future due to karma and create an optimistic future outlook.
The Optimism Bias
When making predictions about the future, people tend to overestimate the likelihood of favourable future outcomes and underestimate the likelihood of unfavourable future outcomes (Weinstein, 1980). This tendency is referred to as the optimism bias, also known as unrealistic optimism (Weinstein, 1980). Sharot (2011) states that it is a widespread phenomenon and around 80% of people displays an optimism bias across different methods and domains. Whether this is shown is unrelated to people’s age, gender and educational, or occupational group (Weinstein, 1987). Noteworthy is that people are only unrealistic optimistic about themselves and people they are close to, no optimism bias is shown when making predictions about people they don’t know (Sharot, 2011).
Optimism can have positive consequences, but unrealistic optimism can be detrimental
(Shepperd, Klein, Waters, & Weinstein, 2013). Positive consequences of optimism can be goal persistency, positive affect and hope (Armor & Taylor, 1998). Unrealistic optimism can lead to negative consequences because people underestimate their risks and this reduces precautionary behaviour (Slovic, Fischhoff, & Lichtenstein, 1978). Shown in earlier research is that people
3 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA underestimate their accident risks while driving (Dalziel & Job, 1997), the susceptibility to get health issues (Clarke, Lovegrove, Williams, & Machperson, 2000) and chances to get venereal diseases (Van der Velde, Van der Pligt, & Hooykaas, 1994). This reduces precautionary behaviour such as such as wearing a seat belt (Slovic et al., 1978), attending medical screenings
(Weinstein 1987), or having safe sex (Van der Velde et al., 1994). It could also promote harmful behaviours such as smoking and unhealthy eating because people do not believe that potential negative consequences will arise from their behaviour (Sharot, 2011), people have the tendency to belief ‘It won’t happen to me’ (Weinstein, 1987).
Earlier research has provided several explanations for the optimism bias to occur. A cognitive explanation for the optimism bias is that people pay more attention to their own self- protective and precautionary behaviour and more at others peoples risks behaviours (Hoorens,
1994). When estimating their own risk compared to others they have more protective behaviour information about themselves available and more risk behaviour information about others available. This rosily perceived self and lack of information about others ensures a biased comparison and causes the belief that their own risk is relatively low (Hoorens, 1994).
Another explanation is that people tend to have a stronger optimism bias because they continuously overestimate the degree of control they have over events (DeJoy, 1989). This perceived control over future events makes people belief they can steer themselves in the right direction and that risks are controllable and preventable by personal action (Weinstein, 1984).
Less optimism bias is shown when there is no control over an outcome, then there is no way of justifying the optimism (Klein & Helweg-Larsen, 2002).
Last, research from Weinstein (1989) explains that comparative unrealistic optimism is a consequence of self-enhancement. People have the desire to develop and maintain a positive self-image, this image is created by perceiving oneself better off than others. They attend to self- and other- related information and select comparison persons in their own
4 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA advantage. They select people who they belief are heading for a less favourable future to compare themselves with. This downwards comparison increases their belief that they are heading for a better future with less problem and increases their unrealistic optimistic view of their future (Weinstein, 1989).
Moral Self-Perception
The concept ‘moral self-perception will be investigated in the hope to find a new predictor that could (partly) explain why people show an optimism bias. Morality is a universal concept on which entire societies are based. It is about actions and behaviours that are considered correct in a social context (Gewirth, 1981). People have a high desirability to identify themselves with moral values such as, being honest, fair and generous, which ensures a strong moral self-perception (Hertz & Krettenauer, 2016). Most people consider themselves as more moral than others, which is referred to as moral superiority illusion (Tappin &
McKay, 2017). (Tappin, 2017). Moral superiority illusion is a unique, strong and widespread positive illusion which provides a positive self-image and stays consistent throughout life
(Zell & Alicke, 2011).
Moral self-perception is expected to be a predictor of the optimism bias, expected is that when people belief to be moral superior the optimism bias will increase. The rationale behind this idea is that moral behaviours are praised in society and immoral behaviours are blamed (Gert, & Gert, 2002), society teaches people to have positive outcome expectancies when behaving moral and negative outcome expectancies when behaving immoral (Copp,
2001). Expected is that people use the same positive outcome expectancies when predicting their own future. Because most people show a moral superiority illusion they expect favourable future outcomes because this adds up with their belief that good behaviour leads to positive outcomes.
5 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
Belief in Karma
Karma is a widespread phenomenon, it plays an important role in major world religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and their offshoots, which together have over 1.5 billion adherents worldwide (Pew Research Center, 2015). It also plays a growing part in spiritual movements in western communities (Willard & Norenzayan, 2017).
Karma could increase the effect from moral self-perception on the optimism bias because people who belief in karma belief a person’s moral actions affect future experiences.
Good deeds cause good things to happen and bad deeds cause bad things to happen (White &
Norenzayan, 2019). People who belief in karma expect that when someone’s acts are not moral such as harmful behaviour or dishonesty, this person can expect unfavourable future life events and different kinds of suffering. Suffering in the form of physical illnesses, such as pain and cancer, (Tang, Mayer, Chou, & Hsiao, 2016), and mental illness such as autism
(Riany, Cuskelly, & Meredith, 2016). Belief in karma influences people’s expectations for the future.
Karma is not time bounded and it can come back at any time in someone’s life and even reincarnated in future lives (White & Norenzayan, 2019). For this research the focus lies on karma coming back in peoples current lives. The reasons for not integrating the reincarnation part is because the test will be taken in the Netherlands, where the main religion is Christianity (CBS, 2018). In Christian cosmologies people have one single lifetime and eternal afterlife. Exposure to Christianity can reduce the acceptance of the influence from karma across multiple lifetimes (White & Norenzayan, 2019).
6 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
Current study
Because most people show a moral superiority illusion they expect favourable future outcomes because this adds up with their belief that good behaviour leads to positive outcomes. When belief in karma is added, expected is that this effect will increase. People belief that their moral behaviour will be rewarded in the future due to karma, which creates a positive future outlook. They don’t predict unfavourable future outcomes such as illness because this does not add up with the karmic principle. There will be investigated if moral self-perception is a predictor of the optimism bias and if belief in karma functions as a moderator on this effect. More specific, the following hypothesis will be examined:
1). The optimism bias increases when people belief to be moral superior.
2). The more people belief in karma the greater the influence form moral self-
perception on the optimism bias.
Below stands a visual representation of expected cause-effect relationship.
Figure 1. Conceptual Model
7 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
Method Participants
Before gathering the data, the ‘G*power’ tool was used to calculate the target sample size for this study with the parameters: α =.05, 1- β = .9, f 2 =.15. An over-recruitment from
15% was added to make sure a power greater than 90% was possible to achieve. This ensured a target sample size of 102 people. The total sample size used for the analyses was 101 participants, (34 male, 60 female) age between 18 and 74 who are all currently living in the
Netherlands. Below stands a frequency table for participant ages.
Table 1.
Frequency distribution: Age (N=101; 59,4% women).
Age Frequency %
18 - 24 51 49.51%
25 - 34 34 33.01%
35 - 44 5 4.85%
45 - 54 5 4.85%
55 - 64 5 4.85%
65 - 74 3 2.91%
Materials
The concepts moral self-perception, belief in karma and optimism bias were all measured on a Likert response scale and presented each in different blocks, within these blocks they were randomized. All three questionnaires showed a Cronbach’s α above .7, which is the cut-off score for a reliable scale (Garson, 2012). The questionnaires can be found in appendix A, for the study the questions were translated to Dutch because the test was taken
8 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA among participants who are currently living in the Netherlands. At the end of the questionnaires participant’s sex, age and the country they are currently reside in were asked.
Moral self-perception was measured with 10 morality related questions. The moral traits used for the questionnaire are based on earlier research from Tappin and Mckay (2017).
Five questions measured moral traits such as honesty and five questions were reversed coded and measured immoral traits such as insincerity. Participants had to judge the statements based on how each trait described themselves compared to others on a 7-point response scale
(1 = Not at all; 7 = Very much so) (Cronbach’s α = .737).
Second the moderator ‘belief in karma’ was measured with 8 questions that are based on a scale from White, Norenzayan and Schaller, (2019). This scale contains two different sub-scales: belief in karmic reincarnation and karmic justice within one lifetime. The five items that measured karmic justice within one lifetime were used in this study. An example of a question is: ‘In the long-run, good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people’. The other three questions that were used explicitly asked if people believed in karma, for example: ‘Karma is a force that influences the events that happen in other people’s lives’. The karmic reincarnation was not integrated in this study. The questions were measured on a 5-point response scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) (Cronbach’s
α = .839).
Last, the dependent variable optimism bias was measured. Participant where presented with 10 unrealistic optimism related questions, which have evoked unrealistic optimism in earlier research from Weinstein, (1980), (1989). The questions were asked in the form: How great do you think your risk is to … compared to other men / woman your age. Such as, contracting a heart attack or cancer. The questions were measured on a 7-point response scale
(1 = Much below average; 7 = Much above average) (Cronbach’s α = .762).
9 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
Procedure
The participants could participate via an online link that was provided on Facebook and Instagram. First there was explained that this is a research for a bachelor thesis from
Tilburg University and that the questionnaire is completely voluntary and anonymous. After that, active consent from participant was gained.
Moral self-perception was manipulated and participants in the manipulation group were asked to type five good deeds they have shown in the last 6 months, two examples of good deeds were given beforehand (helping a family member, donate to charity). Participants in the control group were asked to type five mundane acts they do on a weekly basis, two examples were given beforehand (doing groceries, workout). Morality was only primed in a way that increases feelings of moral superiority because adding an immoral primed group can cause unnecessarily distress for participants. After the manipulation, participants went to the questionnaire about moral self-perception followed by the questionnaires about ‘belief in karma’ and ‘optimism bias.
Design
In this study moral self-perception was manipulated, people were randomly assigned to either the control (N=60) group or the manipulated group (N=41). The three variables moral self-perception, belief in karma and optimism bias were all measured on interval scale.
Moral self-perception functioned as the independent variable, belief in karma as the moderator and the optimism bias as the dependent variable.
10 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
Results
Analysis Optimism Bias
The assumption of normality was checked and the optimism bias showed a normal distribution (Appendix B, Table B1) after that a one sample t-test was conducted to see if the participants showed an optimism bias.
Optimism bias was measured on a 7-point Likert scale, a score of 4 means there is no bias. Below 4 represents a pessimism bias and a score above 4 an optimism bias. The mean score of the participants was 4.85 which was a significant difference from 4 (t (99) = 11.21, p
< .001), d =.85), (Table 2). This shows there is an optimism bias with a big effect size. This means people are more unrealistic optimistic about their future live events compared to others.
Analysis Moral Self-Perception
The assumption of normality was checked and moral self-perception is normally distributed (Appendix B, Table B1), after that a one sample t-test was conducted to see if people rated themselves as moral superior.
The variable moral self-perception was measured on a 7-point Likert scale, 4 means people rate themselves just as moral as others, below 4 means people rate themselves less moral as others and above 4 means people rate themselves more moral than others. Expected was that people belief to be moral superior and rate themselves above 4. This effect was confirmed, the mean of the participant was 5.22 which was a significance difference from 4 (t
(99) = 16.41, p < .001, d = 1.22) (Table 2). This shows there is a moral superiority illusion with a big effect size.
11 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
Table 2.
Descriptive Statistics:(N=101)
Mean Std. deviation
Unrealistic Optimism. 4.851 .762
Moral self- Perception 5.221 .750
Belief in Karma 3.055 .800
Manipulation Moral Self-Perception
To be able to make stronger causal claims moral self-perception was manipulated. An independent sample t-test was conducted and expected was that people predict themselves as more moral in the manipulation condition (good deeds) compared to the control condition
(mundane acts). The mean of the control group was 5.18 (SD=.79) and the mean of the manipulated group was 5.28 (SD=.68) The two groups showed a small and not significant difference (t (99) = -.66, p = .51). The manipulation did not significantly affect moral self- perception, therefor the manipulation will not be integrated in the further analyses.
After that, there was checked if there was an association between the concept moral self-perception and unrealistic optimism. The assumption of linearity was checked and both variables show a positive linear distribution, which means a correlation could be conducted
(Appendix B, Figure B1, B2). The correlation between the two variables was medium to high and significant (r (99) = .35, p < .01). This shows there is a medium to high association between the two concepts (table 3).
12 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
Table 3.
Correlation matrix
Cronbach’s Unrealistic Moral self- Belief in α Optimism Perception Karma
Unrealistic .762 Pearson 1 Optimism Correlation
Sig (2- tailed) N 101
Moral self- .737 Pearson .351** 1 Perception Correlation
Sig (2- .000 tailed) N 101 101
Belief in .839 Pearson .216* -.092 1 Karma Correlation
Sig (2- .030 .360 tailed) N 101 101 101
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Regression Analysis, Moderation Effect
Next, is checked if belief in karma moderates the association between moral self- perception and unrealistic optimism. Before conducting the regression analysis, the variables were checked for violation of the following assumptions; normality, linearity, homoscedastic and multicollinearity. Moral self-perception, belief in karma and optimism bias were all normally distributed, had a linear distribution, a homoscedastic distribution and no multicollinearity was found between the three variables (Appendix B).
13 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
A regression analysis with a moderator was conducted, with unrealistic optimism as the dependent variable, moral self-perception as the independent variable and belief in karma as the moderator. The analyse showed there is no significant moderation effect (∆R2 = .02,
F(1, 97) = 2.38, p = .13). Belief in Karma does not affect the association between moral self- perception and the optimism bias. Because there is no moderation effect the main effects of the analyses could be interpreted, moral self-perception and belief in karma did show a significant effect on the optimism bias (β = .366, p < .001) (β = 0.255, p = .004) respectively
(Table 4).
Table 4.
Coefficients Regression Analysis with Moderator β SE β t p
Moral Self- Perception .366 .093 3.930*** .000
Belief in Karma .255 .087 2.933** .004
Moral Self- .170 .110 1.543 .126 perception * Belief in Karma Note. N=101: p*< .05, p**< .01, p***< .001
14 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
Discussion
Both optimism bias and moral superiority showed a big effect size in this study (d
=.85) (d=1.22) respectively. This is consistent with the finding in earlier research from
Weinstein (1980) and Zell and Alicke (2011). Additional to earlier research a positive association between these concepts was found, moral self-perception and the optimism bias showed a medium to high correlation (r (99) = .35).
The first hypothesis expected that moral superiority would lead to an increase in optimism bias. To be able to make stronger causal claims about the influence from moral self- perception on the optimism bias, moral self-perception was manipulated. But the manipulation did not show a significant difference between the manipulation and control group, so this was not further integrated in the study.
The second hypothesis expected that belief in karma would increase the effect from moral self-perception on the optimism bias. To answer this research question a regression analysis was conducted with belief in karma as the moderator. The results did not show a significant moderation effect from belief in karma. This means that belief in karma does not affect the association between moral self-perception and the optimism bias in this study, which is inconsistent with the second hypothesis. Because there is no moderation effect the main effects can be interpreted. The main effect from moral self-perception on the optimism bias did show a significant effect. The results from the regression analysis implicate that moral self-perception has an effect on the optimism bias in this study.
Because the participants in this study showed a moral superiority illusion with a big effect size, it is likely that a strong moral self-perception leads to an optimism bias. Which is consistent with the first hypothesis that the optimism bias increases when people belief to be moral superior.
15 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
Limitations and Future Research
Because most studies about the optimism bias are correlational and cross-sectional studies (Shepperd, 2015) there was tried to create an experimental design. The greatest limitation in this study is that no strong causal claims could be made because the manipulation of moral self-perception showed no significant effect. Probably the greatest causer is the small sample size of the manipulation group (N=41), while the control group was bigger (N=60). Most incomplete responses were found in the manipulation group, therefor they were not included in the study. Using small samples sizes leads to underpowered and unclear results. If a comparison between two groups is tried to be made there are high numbers, at least (N = 100) of participants needed to even get a small to medium effect (d =
.4) with a power of at least 80% (Brysbaert, 2019).
A suggestion to improve the manipulation is by involving emotions. In this study people only stated five good deeds. The effect could have been greater if this was asked in combinations with the experienced emotions during these activities. Tying an emotion to past experiences could increase the intensity of reliving the experience (Grey, Young, & Holmes,
2002). This could possibly induce stronger feelings of moral superiority, which could create a significant manipulation.
Another limitation is that belief in karma did not show a significant moderation effect.
A possible explanation is that karma does have an effect but this study was not able to show it because of the small sample size. A sensitivity power analysis was conducted to see if the sample size could have caused the insignificant effect. This analysis shows that the minimum effect size that could be detected in the interaction model with this amount of power is
(f2=.13), which is a small to medium effect size. So, it could be that belief in karma shows a small effect, below f2 =.13 which could not be detected due to the sample size.
16 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
Another possible explanation is that karma does not have an effect and there might be another third variable that would explain the association. Karma was positively associated with religion when the religion included karma, such as Hinduism. But karma did not show an association when the religion did not include karma, which is the case for Christianity (White,
Norenzayan, & Schaller, 2019). Because Christianity is the main religion in the Netherlands
(CBS, 2018), this could be an explanation for the insignificant outcome.
A suggestion for a concept that might have a better fit with a western population with
Christianity as main religion is ‘belief in a just world’. People who belief in a just world believe that people get what they deserve and that the world is just and fair (Reich, Wang,
2015). In Christianity there is the fundamental belief that God presided over a just world (Lea,
1988). Despite the fact that karma and belief in a jut world have many similarities (Gokhale,
1961), belief in a just world is probably a better fit because it has a greater association with
Christianity.
Conclusion
Participants in this study showed an optimism bias and moral superiority illusion, which is consistent with earlier research. Additional to earlier research is the association that is found between these two concepts and moral self-perception could be part of the reason why people show an optimism bias. Karma did not influence the association between moral self-perception and the optimism bias in this study. A suggestion for future research is to use a different variable as moderator. The concept ‘belief in just world’ may have a better fit to a western population with Christianity as main religion. Future research would benefit from experimental studies to gain insight in why and under what conditions the optimism bias occurs.
17 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
References
Alicke, M. D., Vredenburg, D. S., Hiatt, M., & Govorun, O. (2001). The “better than myself
effect”. Motivation and Emotion, 25(1), 7-22.
Armor, D. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1998). Situated optimism: Specific outcome expectancies and
self-regulation. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 309-379).
Academic Press.
Ayal, S., Hochman, G., & Ariely, D. (2016). Dishonest behavior, from theory to
practice. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 1521.
Blanken, I., van de Ven, N., & Zeelenberg, M. (2015). A meta-analytic review of moral
licensing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(4), 540-558.
Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered
experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. Journal of
Cognition, 2(1).
Clarke, V. A., Lovegrove, H., Williams, A., & Machperson, M. (2000). Unrealistic optimism
and the health belief model. Journal of behavioral medicine, 23(4), 367-376.
Copp, D. (2001). Morality, normativity, and society. Oxford University Press, USA.
Dalziel, J. R., & Job, R. S. (1997). Motor vehicle accidents, fatigue and optimism bias in taxi
drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 29(4), 489-494.
DeJoy, D. M. (1989). The optimism bias and traffic accident risk perception. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 21(4), 333-340.
Gert, B., & Gert, J. (2002). The definition of morality.
Gewirth, A. (1981). Reason and morality. University of Chicago Press.
Gokhale, B. G. (1961). Indian Thought Through the Ages a Study of Some Dominant
Concepts.
Grey, N., Young, K., & Holmes, E. (2002). Cognitive restructuring within reliving: A
18 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
treatment for peritraumatic emotional" hotspots" in posttraumatic stress
disorder. Behavioural and cognitive psychotherapy, 30(1), 37.
Hertz, S. G., & Krettenauer, T. (2016). Does Moral Identity Effectively Predict Moral
Behavior?: A Meta-Analysis. Review of General Psychology, 20(2), 129–140.
Hoorens, V. (1994). Unrealistic optimism in health and safety risks.
Klein, C. T., & Helweg-Larsen, M. (2002). Perceived control and the optimistic bias: A meta-
analytic review. Psychology and health, 17(4), 437-446.
Lea, J. A. W. (1988). Religiosity and the belief in a just world
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world. In The Belief in a just World (pp. 9-30).
Springer, Boston, MA.
Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self‐licensing: When being good
frees us to be bad. Social and personality psychology compass, 4(5), 344-357.
Messick, D. M., Bloom, S., Boldizar, J. P., & Samuelson, C. D. (1985). Why we are fairer
than others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21(5), 480-500.
Mkenna, F. P., & Albery, I. P. (2001). Does Unrealistic Optimism Change Following a
Negative Experience? 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(6), 1146-1157.
Reich, B., & Wang, X. (2015). And justice for all: Revisiting the global belief in a just world
scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 78, 68-76.
Rolstad, S., Adler, J., & Rydén, A. (2011). Response burden and questionnaire length: is
shorter better? A review and meta-analysis. Value in Health, 14(8), 1101-1108.
Sharot, T. (2011). The optimism bias. Current biology, 21(23), R941-R945.
Sharot, T., Korn, C. W., & Dolan, R. J. (2011). How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the
face of reality. Nature neuroscience, 14(11), 1475.
Shepperd, J. A., Klein, W. M., Waters, E. A., & Weinstein, N. D. (2013). Taking stock of
unrealistic optimism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 395-411.
19 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
Shepperd, J. A., Pogge, G., & Howell, J. L. (2017). Assessing the consequences of unrealistic
optimism: Challenges and recommendations. Consciousness and Cognition, 50, 69-78.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1978). Accident probabilities and seat belt usage:
A psychological perspective. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 10(4), 281-285.
Strunk, D. R., Lopez, H., & DeRubeis, R. J. (2006). Depressive symptoms are associated with
unrealistic negative predictions of future life events. Behaviour research and
therapy, 44(6), 861-882.
Tang, P. L., Mayer, D. K., Chou, F. H., & Hsiao, K. Y. (2016). The experience of cancer
stigma in Taiwan: A qualitative study of female cancer patients. Archives of
psychiatric nursing, 30(2), 204-209.therapy, 44(6), 861-882.
Tappin, B. M., & McKay, R. T. (2017). The illusion of moral superiority. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 8(6), 623-631.
Van der Velde, F. W., Van der Pligt, J., & Hooykaas, C. (1994). Perceiving AIDS-related
risk: Accuracy as a function of differences in actual risk. Health Psychology, 13(1),
25.
Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of personality
and social psychology, 39(5), 806.
Weinstein, N. D. (1984). Why it won't happen to me: perceptions of risk factors and
susceptibility. Health psychology, 3(5), 431.
Weinstein, N. D. (1987). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems:
Conclusions from a community-wide sample. Journal of behavioral medicine, 10(5),
481-500
Weinstein, N. D. (1989). Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science, 246(4935), 1232-
1234.
White, C. J. M., & Norenzayan, A. (2019). Belief in karma: How cultural evolution,
20 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
cognition, and motivations shape belief in supernatural justice. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology.doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2019.03.001
White, C.J.M., Norenzayan, A., & Schaller, M. (2019). The content and correlates of belief in
karma across cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(8), 1184-1201.
Zell, E., & Alicke, M. D. (2011). Age and the better‐than‐average effect. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 41(5), 1175-1188.
21 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
Appendix A
Moral self-perception questionnaire
The moral self-perception questionaries’ contains 10 items. Asked was to judge the statements based on how each trait describes themselves compared to others.
The questionnaires had a 7-point likert scale, scale 1 to 7, not at all ----- very much so
1. How honest do you think you are compared to the average person.
2. How trustworthy do you think you are compared to the average person.
3. How fair do you think you are compared to the average person.
4. How respectful do you think you are compared to the average person.
5. How principled do you think you are compared to the average person.
6. How insincere do you think you are compared to the average person.
7. How prejudiced do you think you are compared to the average person.
8. How disloyal do you think you are compared to the average person.
9. How manipulative do you think you are compared to the average person.
10. How deceptive do you think you are compared to the average person.
Belief in Karma questionnaire
The belief in karma questionnaire contained 8 items, rated on a 5-point response scale
(1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree).
1. Karma is a force that influences the events that happen in my life
2. Karma is not something real
3. Karma is a force that influences the events that happen in other people’s lives
4. When people are met with misfortune, they have brought it upon themselves by previous behaviour in their life
22 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
5. When people experience good fortune, they have brought it upon themselves by previous behaviour in their life
6. If a person does something bad, even if there are no immediate consequences, they will be punished for it in some future time in their life
7. When someone does a good deed, even if there are no immediate consequences, they will be rewarded for it in some future time in their life
8. In the long-run, good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people
Optimism Bias questionnaire
The Optimism bias questionnaire contained 10 items, rated on a 7-point response scare (1
= Much below average; 7 = Much above average).
1. How great do you think your risk is to contract venereal disease compared to other
men / woman your age.
2. How great do you think your risk is to having a drinking problem compared to other
men / woman your age.
3. How great do you think your risk is to being fired from a job compared to other men /
woman your age.
4. How great do you think your risk is to get pneumonia compared to other men / woman
your age.
How great do you think your risk is to become a mugging victim compared to other
men / woman your age.
5. How great do you think your risk is to get the flu compared to other men / woman
your age.
23 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
6. How great do you think your risk is to end up in a car accident compared to other men
/ woman your age.
7. How great do you think your risk is to getting a heart attack compared to other men /
woman your age.
8. How great do you think your risk is to fall and break a bone compared to other men /
woman your age.
9. How great do you think your risk is to contract cancer compared to other men /
woman your age.
10. How great do you think your risk is to attempt suicide compared to other men /
woman your age.
24 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
Appendix B
Assumption Normality
The assumption for normal distribution was checked with the skewness and kurtosis of each variable. The scores need to be in between -2 and 2 for the variable to have a normal distribution (Garson, 2012), which is the case for all three variables.
Table B1.
Assumption: Normality
Skewness Kurtosis
Unrealistic Optimism -.359 2.778
Moral self- Perception .094 -.329
Belief in Karma -.093 -.324
Assumption Linearity
Last, to check the assumption of linearity two scatterplots were conducted (x =Moral self-perception, y = optimism bias; x = belief in karma y = optimism bias). The plots were oval-shaped and showed a positive linear effect which indicates there is no violation Osborne et al. 2002). As shown, there were no violations of the assumption so the data can be interpreted.
25 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
Figure B1. Linear Distribution Moral Self-Perception and Optimism Bias
Figure B2. Linear Distribution Belief in Karma and Optimism Bias
26 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
Assumption Homoscedasticity
Next, homoscedasticity is checked, a scatterplot was conducted. (x = Z residual, y
=dependent). No obvious patterns were found in the plot which means the assumption is not violated (Osborne & Waters, 2002).
Figure B3. Homoscedastic Distribution Moral Self-Perception and Optimism Bias
27 OPTIMISM BIAS, MORAL SELF-PERCEPTION AND BELIEF IN KARMA
Figure B4. Homoscedastic Distribution Belief in Karma and Optimism Bias
Assumption Multicollinearity
The VIF value was used to check for multicollinearity, which was calculated for moral self-perception, belief in karma and the optimism bias, (VIF = 1.101, 1.095, 1.001) respectively. The cut off score for multicollinearity is VIF < 5 (Garson, 2012), So no multicollinearity was found between the variables.
28