The Karma of Consumption: Role of Materialism in the Pursuit of Life Satisfaction

Purpose – This paper examines how social comparison and belief in karma encourage materialism and promote consumers’ life satisfaction. Design/methodology/approach – Two studies were conducted with Indian middle-class consumers to test the basic premises of the current research. The first one employed a survey (N=247), while the second one used an experimental design (N=206). Findings – The survey results showed that social comparison and belief in karma promoted materialism amongst Indian consumers and further enhanced their life satisfaction. Findings from the experiment revealed a novel two-way interaction, in that the karma–materialism relationship was moderated by the underlying motivation for materialism. Research limitations/implications – Future research may validate and extend our findings using different samples to increase external validity. Practical implications – By explaining the interactive effects of materialism, its underlying motivation and belief in karma, managers will gain better understanding of why consumers in an emerging market like India purchase conspicuous products. Originality/value – This is the first paper to study how the karma–materialism relationship influences life satisfaction amongst consumers in the world’s fastest rising economy. Furthermore, no prior research has reported a boundary condition for the karma–materialism relationship studied here. The findings contribute to an extremely limited body of literature on karma and consumption.


Introduction
Materialism has received considerable academic attention due to its influence on consumers' psychological well-being and consumption behaviour (Belk, 1983;Burroughs and Rindfleisch, 2002;Wang, 2016;Xiao and Kim, 2009). The dominant view of materialism focuses on individualism and a self-prioritized lifestyle led by money, possessions and status, which may seemingly conflict with collective and prosocial goals (Awanis et al., 2017).
Despite the broad finding that materialism can negatively influence well-being (Dittmar et al., 2014), previous works show that, in certain situations, it can enhance life satisfaction. For example, when people have previously been through economic deprivation, or when materialism served instrumental needs (e.g., security, nurturing a family), it has promoted life satisfaction (Biswas-Diener and Diener, 2001;Srivastava et al., 2001).
Moreover, while materialism correlated negatively with well-being in developed countries such as the United States (USA) and Japan, it was found to enhance well-being in developing countries like Thailand (Wong et al., 2003). Extant research argues that the concept of materialism in emerging economies (e.g., China, India) is nuanced, and recommends more work to understand the congruence of material and societal values (Awanis et al., 2017). Further, despite the rise of materialism in emerging countries in general (Cleveland et al., 2009;Sharma, 2011), and the splurge of consumer spending amongst more than 1.2 billion Indians (Dheer et al., 2015), evidence regarding the influence of materialism on the life satisfaction of Indian consumers is scant (Gap 1).
In the current work, we posit that the pursuit of materialism amongst India's middle class 1 is encouraged through normative social processes such as comparison with similar others. Comparison is ubiquitous in social domain (Garcia et al., 2013) as consumers commonly seek to achieve a superior position than others in a variety of contexts from daily social situations to organizational settings and market transactions (De Botton, 2004;Podolny, 2005). Besides, empirical evidence in support of the influence of social comparison in promoting material possessions among the Indian consumers is relatively sparse, with scholars recommending more work in the context of emerging economies (Chakravarti, 2006;Hill et al., 2012) (Gap 2). The basic notion of social comparison has been emphasized across multiple theoretical paradigms, such as social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954); value theory (Khaptsova and Schwartz, 2016;Sagiv and Schwartz, 2000;Schwartz, 1992), and person-environment congruence theory (Dittmar et al., 2014). Building on these paradigms, we theorize that social comparison encourages the adoption of material values in an emerging economy like India. Furthermore, consumers' adoption of the prevalent and normative material values can enhance their life satisfaction.
Besides the role of social processes in promoting material values, we also propose that karmic belief can encourage materialism. The concept of karma, originating in ancient Indian scriptures, preaches the consequences of being 'good' and 'bad', and is also prevalent in Western societies (Chatterjee et al., 2013). Karma, originally rooted in religious text, plays an important role in India and is capable of influencing consumer purchase decisions (Kopalle et al., 2010).While paradigms such as value theory predict that an individual's material values will clash with his/her religious and spiritual values (Burroughs and 1 By middle class, we refer to the 'new' middle class, that is, people who are educated and professional whitecollar staff (Fuller and Narasimhan, 2007). This middle class started to grow in India from 1991 when the policy of economic liberalization began. The size and prosperity of India's middle class have already grown considerably, making them a very attractive consumer market for different companies, including multinational corporations (Wessel, 2004). Rindfleisch, 2002), a growing number of studies argues that religion can incorporate the paradoxical views of materialism (Minton et al., 2016;Sinha, 2014;Choudhury, 2014;Sinha, 2014;Faure and Fang, 2008). Some scholars even argue that Indians have learned to reconcile the contradiction between spiritual beliefs and materialism (Minton et al., 2016;Sinha, 2014). Despite this growing body of literature, it is still unknown whether karmic belief influences material values amongst Indian consumers (Gap 3). Marketing scholars have since recommended more research to study how key aspects of culture (e.g., belief in Karma in India) can affect consumer behaviour (Kopalle et al., 2010).
As the next step in our work, we explore the boundary condition for the karmamaterialism relationship. The limited body of work collectively shows that the underlying motivation for human behaviour can be influenced by karmic belief (Kulow and Kramer, 2016;Converse et al., 2012;Kopalle et al., 2010). Building on this body of literature, we propose that the influence of karma in promoting material values can be further moderated by the underlying motivation for materialism. Although the extant literature (Sirgy et al., 2013;Srivastava et al., 2001) shows that material values can be encouraged by positive motivation (e.g., nurturing a family) as well as negative motivation (e.g., flaunting one's wealth), the moderating role of motivation on the karma-materialism link has not previously been proposed and empirically tested (Gap 4). While Kulow and Kramer (2016) report reduced pro-social behaviour in presence of karmic belief and self-gain cues, the current work extends this limited line of research to show that the underlying motivation promoting material values (key moderator of this work) can explain such self-focused behaviour.
In summary, we propose a model in which social processes and karmic belief influence life satisfaction through material values. This model is first tested through a correlational design by conducting a survey amongst Indian consumers. We further provide causal evidence (through an experiment) for how the karma-materialism path is moderated by the underlying motivation for material pursuit. In doing so, we explore the following research questions: RQ1: Do social comparison and belief in karma promote material pursuit and life satisfaction amongst Indian middle-class consumers? RQ2: Does motivation underlying material pursuit moderate the relationship between karma and materialism?
The current work therefore explores the novel karma-materialism-life satisfaction relationship along with its boundary condition. A growing body of findings is now showing that religious thoughts can promote materialism (Minton et al., 2016;Sinha, 2014;Choudhury, 2014;Sinha, 2014;Faure and Fang, 2008). However, scholars are increasingly encouraging more research in this area (Choudhury, 2014;Faure and Fang, 2008). Moreover, although karma resonates with many people, an extremely limited amount of work has been undertaken on influence of karmic belief in consumer behaviour (Kulow and Kramer, 2016), something which is addressed in the current work. By exploring the relationship between materialism and life satisfaction, the current work enlarges the limited body of work that supports the positive role of materialism (Srivastava et al., 2001;Biswas-Diener and Diener, 2001). Finally, following recommendations from extant scholars (Sirgy et al., 2013;Srivastava et al., 2001), the current work seeks to enquire into the more nuanced role of materialism by studying its underlying motivation as the moderator.
In the following section, we outline the relevant theory that guides our key hypotheses, following which we report the results from a survey and an experiment, both conducted with Indian middle-class consumers. The findings and implications are then discussed, followed by presentation of the study's limitations and directions for future research.

Social Comparison
People tend to compare themselves with others in their society. These 'others' may often include people who are highly relevant and similar to themselves (Festinger, 1954), for example, neighbours. Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) argues that consumers are innately driven to evaluate themselves and their abilities against others within groups, especially in the absence of available objective standards. Undertaking social comparisons help them reduce uncertainty and create meaning and mental happiness (Suls and Wheeler, 2000). Such social comparisons are pervasive and often encouraged through everyday lifestyle such as media advertisements, where material values and idealized images are promoted on a routine basis (Richins, 1991;Schiffman and Kanuk, 2004). Thus, social comparison is a reality and is a central feature of our everyday life (Buunk and Gibbons, 2007). Research on consumer behaviour shows that conspicuous consumption can be driven by this type of comparison, and the associated status that comes with such consumption (Ordabayeva and Chandon, 2011). Enhancement through consumption can be satisfying, especially when individuals are driven by social competition goals (Dittmar et al., 2014). Furthermore, with conspicuous consumption, social competition goals are triggered in individuals as one tries to 'keep up with the Joneses' (Ordabayeva and Chandon, 2011).
The role of values and goals has been further recognized across different societies.
According to Schwartz (1992), human beings are driven by a set of values that can be associated with trans-situational goals. These values are further structured in ways that help individuals with their attitudes and behaviour. For example, values can help individuals attain personal or social goals related to, amongst others, self-enhancement, growth and security (Schwartz et al., 2012). The values adopted by people can be more congruent or can conflict with the ones promoted by their society (Schwartz et al., 2012;Schwartz, 1992).
The role of social comparison can be further understood through examining how human beings compare their values with those of similar others in their society. Theoretical paradigms like value congruence and person-environment congruence support the notion of social comparison (Khaptsova and Schwartz, 2016;Sagiv and Schwartz, 2000). People tend to compare themselves with their reference groups, such as members from a similar ethnicity, background or occupation (Khaptsova and Schwartz, 2016). The group values such as average attitude, behaviour and values (e.g., income levels) can, in turn, become the descriptive norm and reference for comparison (Sagiv and Schwartz, 2000;Burroughs and Rindfleisch, 2002).
When a person's values match the dominant norm in their environment, the individual may be satisfied with his/her current position; for example, it may be reassuring to know that an individual's income aligns with the income distribution of his/her peers (Sagiv and Schwartz, 2000). Social comparison that underlies consumption can further enhance life satisfaction if one is able to attain the comparison group's prevailing normative standards (Khaptsova and Schwartz, 2016;Ordabayeva and Chandon, 2011). In the following section, we discuss how materialism is encouraged amongst the Indian middle class through social comparison.

Social Comparison and Material Values
Materialism has been regarded by scholars as an important life value (Richins and Dawson, 1992;Richins, 1987;Belk, 1985). Richins (1987) describes materialism as a "set of centrally held beliefs about the importance of possessions in one's life". Based on the extant literature, one can conceptualise materialism as individual differences in people's long-term endorsement of values, goals and associated beliefs that centre on the importance of acquiring money and possessions (Dittmar, 2008;Richins, 2004;Sirgy, 1998). According to Belk (1985), the term 'materialism' can be described as how much a consumer values his/her material items, dislikes sharing his/her possessions and feels jealous when other consumers acquire similar or additional material items.
In today's society, the overtly active market system often tends to legitimize and normalize the adoption of material values. Advertising, endorsements and images tend to progress the message of the insecure consumer who is forced to think of himself/herself as inadequate, especially when compared to others (Kasser and Ahuvia, 2002). Furthermore, people may internalize these widely promoted material values as they try to keep up with others in their society (Chan and Prendergast, 2007;Richins, 1995). Consumers compare themselves with what others have and use this comprehension to set their own consumption benchmarks, i.e. emulate 'standards' of a good life and constantly weigh the reality of their lives against those set standards (Michalos, 1985).
Consumers adopt materialistic values through social learning, e.g. by observing consumptions of peers and family members (Kasser et al., 2004). Research in the context of different countries, such as China and the USA, shows that social influence can indeed motivate material aspirations (Schroeder and Dugal, 1995;Chan and Prendergast, 2007). The adoption of material values has been strongly endorsed by collectivist cultures like China, where social hierarchies are present (Wong and Ahuvia, 1998). As social hierarchy is legitimate and conformity to group norms is widely practiced in the Indian society, social comparison of material possessions as a means to locate an individual's position in the hierarchy is encouraged. Owning of material goods to improve personal visibility within the social hierarchy is likely to be supported in India. In fact, the Ipsos (2013) survey of Indian consumers highlighted that 58% measured their success based on their material possessions.
Based on the above theory, we posit the following: H1: Social comparison tendency has a positive influence on materialism.

Role of Karmic Belief in Promoting Material Values
One of the key ideas underlying the concept of belief in karma is that an individual's future state is determined by the consequences of his/her present actions (Kulow and Kramer, 2016;Kopalle et al., 2010). Good (bad) deeds through present actions and their future outcomes are conveniently correlated using karma which is well ingrained in the value system of the Indian civilization (Kopalle et al., 2010). Karma originates in the scriptures of ancient India and preaches the moral law of causation as well as the consequences of being 'good' and 'bad'. However, the concept of karmic belief is also prevalent in Western civilization with common sayings such as "you sow what you reap" or "what goes around comes around" (White, Baimel and Norenzayan 2017;Kulow and Kramer, 2016;Chatterjee et al., 2013). According to Kulow and Kramer (2016), karmic belief shares similarities with other peculiar irrational beliefs like fate and magical thinking.
The existing literature on value congruence argues that religious values are selftranscendent and, therefore, may clash with material values (Kasser and Ahuvia, 2002;Burroughs and Rindfleisch, 2002). Subsequently, the motives underlying material values (e.g., acquisition, self-centredness) may conflict with motivations, such as selflessness, that underlie religious values (Kasser and Ahuvia, 2002;Burroughs and Rindfleisch, 2002).
Interestingly, scholarly studies have started to report that religious values can embrace the paradoxical views underpinning materialism, consumerism and spiritual beliefs (Choudhury, 2014;Sinha, 2014;Faure and Fang, 2008).
Building on this perspective, interviews with followers of Nichiren Buddhism indicate that followers can chant for whatever they want (e.g. job, car) and link it to happiness for the self (Choudhury, 2014). Similarly, a spiritual belief like Feng shui can be invoked to justify the purchase of a luxury property (Faure and Fang, 2008). In the context of India, several researchers posit that the contradiction between spiritual beliefs and materialism has been reconciled in the Indian mindset (Minton et al., 2016;Sinha, 2014).
Researchers indicate that Indians, knowing that a material life is indispensable, tend to seek spirituality while leading an earthly life (Minton et al., 2016;Sinha, 2014). For instance, millions of Hindu Indians invoke the Goddess Lakshmi when praying for wealth and wellbeing (Minton et al., 2016).
Recent research shows that a religious upbringing can make people less generous and more self-focused (Kirchmaiera et al., 2018;Decety et al., 2015). For example, in their research, Decety et al. (2015) asked children to participate in an experimental dictator game.
The findings showed that children from a religious family were less likely to share a reward (e.g., stickers) with another child from the same school and ethnic group. Similarly, religious adults were also likely to be selfish compared to non-religious people when they had to share monetary payments in an experimental dictator game (Kirchmaiera et al., 2018). In summary, based on research on religion, it is likely that people can accommodate contradictory values or even act selfishly when cued with material gains.
Another stream of research that indirectly supports the view that karma may promote materialism comes from the consumer behaviour literature (Kulow and Kramer 2016;Kopalle et al., 2010). The amount of literature in this research stream is however limited. For example, Kulow and Kramer (2016) argue that belief in karma may encourage more self-focused thoughts to maximize gains for the self. Kopalle et al. (2010) find that karma may promote higher product expectations amongst Indian consumers. Past research shows that materialistic purchases are encouraged by self-focused thoughts (Burroughs and Rindfleisch, 2002;Lee and Shrum, 2012). Similarly, a significant motivation for luxury consumption is based on expectations of higher product performance (Hudders and Pandelaere, 2012). Kopalle et al. (2010) posit that belief in karma can have significant influence on consumer purchase decisions amongst Indians. Therefore, we argue that religious values can indeed support material values, and that a belief in karma can encourage material consumption as it promotes self-focus and product expectations. Based on the literature, we therefore argue that: H2: Belief in karma will have a positive effect on materialism.

Materialism and Life Satisfaction
Several studies demonstrate that materialism reduces satisfaction with life (Burroughs and Rindfleisch, 2002;Kasser and Ahuvia, 2002;Ryan and Dziurawiec, 2001). The major notion underpinning this finding is that materialistic people are less satisfied with their possessions in comparison to their non-materialistic counterparts and that this, in turn, reduces life satisfaction (Sirgy, 1998). Evidence shows that when people have unrealistic material goals, this can lead to diminished life satisfaction (Sirgy et al., 2013). Similarly, when people are extremely pre-occupied with material values to the point that they start neglecting other important life domains (e.g., social relationships), this can, in turn, lead to reduced life satisfaction (Kasser and Ryan, 2001).
However, under certain circumstances, materialism can also lead to positive outcomes. Previous research reports that a rise in income through windfall gains can lead to a higher level of well-being (Gardner and Oswald, 2007). It is also possible that materialistic people may set ability-based goals for themselves and that realising these material goals can, in turn, lead to a higher level of life satisfaction (Sirgy, 1998). Similarly, when materialistic aspirations help to achieve instrumental goals like providing for and nurturing their family, this can enhance well-being (Srivastava et al., 2001).
The context of our research, that is, an emerging economy also plays a role. For example, extant research shows that a higher income can lead to subjective well-being in the context of developing (versus developed) economies (Biswas- Diener and Diener, 2001).
Corroborating this line of argument, previous evidence shows that materialism reduced the level of subjective well-being in the USA and Japan, but enhanced it in Thailand (Wong et al., 2003).
A similar argument can also be drawn from the values literature. When individuals perceive themselves to be like others, especially their peers or reference groups, this enhances their life satisfaction (Khaptsova and Schwartz, 2016;Sortheix and Lonnqvist, 2015). With this comparison, people consider how they stand relative to what is normative in their reference group (Sortheix and Lonnqvist, 2015). According to Khaptsova and Schwartz (2016), Russians reported a higher level of life satisfaction when they perceived themselves to be like others in terms of important values (e.g., achievement, security).
We have previously argued that material values are encouraged through social processes (e.g., comparison), thus leading to our first hypothesis. Indians are increasingly adopting these material standards for reasons that are evident. Firstly, prior work shows that socio-economic deprivation at an early life stage can promote materialism later in life (Gardner and Oswald, 2007). Consumers of an emerging economy like India are likely to have experienced economic deprivation prior to the country's economic liberalization and, as the economy has become more affluent, have adopted materialistic values (Abramson and Inglehart, 1995). Comparing and adopting the value system (e.g., materialism) of an individual's reference group (Indians who are similar) may therefore promote life satisfaction (Khaptsova and Schwartz, 2016). In summary, we propose that social and religious beliefs would enhance material values leading to increased life satisfaction. Therefore, we posit the following hypotheses: H3: Materialism will have a positive influence on life satisfaction.

H4: The influence of (a) social comparison and (b) karma on life satisfaction will
be mediated by materialism.

Boundary Condition for Belief in Karma-Materialism Relationship
Thus far, we have argued that belief in karma will influence life satisfaction through materialism. However, extant research shows that different motivations can underlie materialism (Sirgy et al., 2013;Sirgy, 1998). Similarly, materialism can also be driven by one's aspirations, that is, whether one has realistic or fantasy-based expectations of materialism. Realistic expectations can be achieved based on one's ability (e.g., qualifications, background, etc.), while fantasy-based expectations might not be realised (Sirgy et al., 2013).
In the current study, we argue that the underlying motive for materialism can act as the moderator in the belief in karma-materialism relationship. Srivastava et al. (2001) argue that people can pursue materialism with positive motivation, for example, to meet their security needs or to provide for their family. On the other hand, people pursue materialistic aspirations for extrinsic reasons (also perceived as negative), such as proving their self-worth or showing off to others (Srivastava et al., 2001).
Participants' motivation to undertake an action was influenced by karmic beliefs as shown in prior work (Converse et al., 2012). Similarly, the motivation to evaluate a product (e.g., product expectancy) was moderated by karmic belief (Kopalle et al., 2010). More related to our study is how belief in karma influences motivation when participants are thinking of self-gains. Previous work shows that karmic belief promotes self-related thoughts and encourages selfish behaviour, especially in the presence of cues that signal selfgains (Kulow and Kramer, 2016). In particular, these authors argue that when material gains are cued, belief in karma promotes self-focused thoughts at the expense of selfless behaviour, such as a donation to charity (Kulow and Kramer, 2016).
In studies 2 and 3 of Kulow and Kramer (2016), participants were primed with karmic belief (vs. karmic belief absent). Following this, they were exposed to charity messages which either framed as self-gain (vs. gaining others). Interestingly, for those cued with karmic belief, pro-social behaviour (e.g., intention to donate time for charity) was reduced in the presence of self-gain messages. In contrast, no such effect was observed when belief in karma was absent. These authors postulate that self-gain cues actually caused consumers to focus attention on themselves, in the presence of karmic belief. Past research shows that when people are driven by the need to be noticed and draw attention towards themselves, they resort to conspicuous consumption (Lee and Shrum, 2012). Conspicuous consumption has been long posited to be self-focused, with an inherent intention to impress others by calling attention to the self (Lee and Shrum, 2012;Veblen, 1994). Based on this, it is expected that karmic belief would indeed promote self-focused thoughts in presence of materialistic cues, especially when the underlying motivation is to fulfil an inherent need to show-off to others. This effect should diminish in the absence of belief in karma. Based on this, we posit the next hypothesis:

H5: The relationship between belief in karma and materialism leading to life
satisfaction is strengthened (weakened) when the underlying motivation guiding material pursuit is negative (positive).
The conceptual framework, presented in Figure 1, showcases the above hypotheses.
To test these hypotheses, we ran two studies: Study 1 and Study 2. Study 1 based on a survey was conducted to test H1-H4. To further explore the boundary condition for the belief in karma-materialism relationship (H5), we conducted an experiment under Study 2. The details of both the studies are discussed below.
[ Figure 1 is about here]

Method
The data for Study 1were collected through a structured survey conducted in a large Indian city. A total of 247 responses were collected from middle-class consumers using convenience sampling. The average age of respondents was approximately 36 years, with an average monthly income of 32,500 Indian rupees (Rs.) (approx. US$457). Of the respondents, 55.1% were male and 90.8% had either a graduate or postgraduate degree. In all, 42.4% of respondents were either government or private job holders whereas 17.7% were self-employed professionals. The survey instrument had two sections. In the first section, respondents were asked to recall one of their material purchases. This was followed by a series of questions covering the scale items of the constructs used in the study, that is, social comparison, belief in karma, materialism and life satisfaction. The second part of the questionnaire comprised demographic information from respondents.

Measures
The scale items used in the study were adopted from the existing literature. "Social comparison" was measured using scale items adopted from Gibbons and Buunk (1999). The scale items for "belief in karma" and "materialism" were adopted from Kopalle et al. (2010) and Richins (1987), respectively. "Life satisfaction" was measured using scale items adopted from Diener et al. (1985). All the construct measures were anchored in 7-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).

Scale Assessment
All the scale items used in this study were assessed for their uni-dimensionality, reliability and validity through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (Anderson and Gerbing, 1982). We  (Hu and Bentler, 1999). All the parameter estimates are high (ranging from 0.55-0.92; see Table 1) and load significantly (p < 0.001) on their respective expected latent constructs, showing a high degree of convergent validity. Table 1 shows all the scale items, their factor loadings and descriptive statistics. The minimum value of composite reliability is 0.84 for "life satisfaction", showing high internal consistency of the scale items. All the scales also show discriminant validity as the minimum value of average variance extracted (AVE) is 0.57 (for "life satisfaction") and the AVE of each factor exceeds the square of its correlations with all the other constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Table 2 shows the correlations and psychometric properties of the constructs used in the study. We adopted different measures to minimize the effects of common method variance.
We carefully crafted a cover letter for the survey instrument assuring respondents of their anonymity and requesting their honest responses. This helped us to reduce respondents' evaluation apprehension and, thus, controlled for possible sources of common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In addition, based on Harman's single-factor test, the un-rotated factor solution was run for all the items used in the study. This generated more than a single factor and lent support to the fact that common method bias was not an issue for this study (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Although it is difficult to identify the exact source(s) of common method bias, these procedural steps helped us to minimize its effect (Roy and Rabbanee, 2015). Table 1 and Table 2

Discussion
The first study conducted a survey among middle-class Indians, with the findings showing that H1-H4 were supported. In the context of an emerging economy like India, the susceptibility to normative social influence promotes materialism. It is therefore likely that social forces promote material values amongst the Indian middle class. Indians are obviously trying to 'keep up with the Joneses' which, in turn, is leading the way toward material consumption. Furthermore, belief in karma has a positive influence on materialism. This is supported by the extant literature that found religious beliefs influence materialistic orientation (Choudhury, 2014). Moreover, the current study shows that materialism mediates the effects of socio-normative and karmic belief influences on life satisfaction. Although the extant literature argues that materialism can have both positive and negative effects, the current findings demonstrate that, in the context of the Indian middle class, materialism has a positive effect on life satisfaction. Study 1 uses hypotheses which are grounded in the extant literature to make predictions. The positive karma-materialism relationship in study 1 seems to suggest that Indian middle class is increasingly embracing conspicuous consumption, which is further driving life satisfaction. However, the nature of Study 1 is correlational, rather than causal.
To identify the boundary condition of the link between "belief in karma" and "materialism", we pursued an experimental design to conduct our second study. Study 2 was therefore used to primarily examine H5 and to provide causal support for some of the relationships we established in Study 1. In order to ensure the robustness of our analysis, we measured "materialism" with the scale developed by Richins (2004). This is a more recent scale consists of three dimensions: success, centrality and happiness. The details are outlined under Study 2 below.

Method
In Study 2, we conducted an experiment with executive Master of Business Administration (MBA) students of the business school of a large Indian city. A total of 206 respondents (average age 35.4 years, 49.5% were female; average monthly income of Rs. 50,575 [approx. US$711]; 83.5% had either a bachelor or Master's degree; 53.4% were either a government or private job holder; and 14.6% were business owners) took part in a 2 ("belief in karma": absent versus present) x 2 ("motivation": positive versus negative) betweensubjects' experiment. On arrival, respondents (subjects) were randomly allocated to each condition. The instrument for the experiment was divided into three parts. In the first part, "belief in karma" was manipulated by stating the concept of karma and asking respondents to describe two situations in their lives where karma had influenced them to act in a specific way. For comparison, respondents in the control condition were asked to describe two routine activities in their daily lives. They then answered a manipulation check item ("I believe in karma") for "belief in karma" on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The manipulation was adapted from Kopalle et al. (2010).
In the second part of the questionnaire, through using scenarios, we manipulated the underlying motivation. We asked respondents to imagine that they were working towards a degree and hoping to achieve material success (acquire luxury products, a house, cars, etc.) to support their family (positive motivation) versus to show off wealth (negative motivation).
Respondents then completed the manipulation check questions ("Material success can be used to support family needs" and "Material success can be used to show-off to others") for positive and negative motivation; both were measured on a 7-point Likert scale. The manipulation check items were based on the existing literature (Sirgy et al., 2013;Srivastava et al., 2001). Following this, the respondents answered question items for the key dependent variable "life satisfaction" followed by series of items for "social comparison" and "materialism". Finally, respondents completed the demographic items. We measured "social comparison" and "life satisfaction" using the same scale items that were used in Study 1.
"Materialism" was measured using Richins' (2004) scale that consists of three dimensions: success, centrality and happiness.
We began the data analysis by checking the manipulations of the scenarios and also by testing the constructs for their reliability and validity. For the "belief in karma" manipulation, results of the one-way ANOVA showed that respondents (subjects) reported higher scores on the dependent variable in the "belief in karma" present versus absent Finally, respondents (subjects) in the negative (vs. positive) "motivation" subscribed to the view that materialism can be used to show-off to others (Ms of 4.65 vs. 4.02; F (1, 199) = 7.34, p = 0.007). Therefore, the manipulations for "belief in karma" and "motivation" were found to be successful.
In order to test the reliability and validity of the constructs, we ran both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The EFA results revealed that most items, except for the centrality and happiness dimensions of "materialism", loaded highly on the respective construct. The EFA of the centrality and happiness dimensions of "materialism" revealed two cross-loaded items for each dimension, with these deleted and not considered for further analysis. This was in line with the approaches of previous studies (e.g., Sin et al., 2005). The descriptive statistics and factor loadings of the scale items corresponding to the constructs are shown in Table 4.
We tested the measurement model with AMOS 22.0 and found a satisfactory fit (χ 2 = 262.46; df = 131; χ 2 /df = 2.004; RMSEA = 0.07; CFI = 0.90; TLI = 0.90; NFI = 0.83; and SRMR = 0.07). The convergent validity of the constructs was examined by checking the substantial factor loading of all items (Hair et al., 1995) which all loaded significantly (at the 0.01 level) onto the respective latent construct. The average variance extracted (AVE) of the constructs was found to be greater than 0.50, thus supporting the convergent validity of the constructs of interest (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The correlation values (see Table 5) between the constructs used in the study were found to be within the acceptable limit, thus supporting the discriminant validity of the constructs (Kline, 2005). The lowest value of construct reliability (CR) was 0.85 for the happiness dimension of "materialism", thus suggesting adequate internal consistency of the scale items used in the study. The AVE for each construct revealed that all exceeded the minimum cut-off point of 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981;Hair et al., 2010). Table 4 and Table 5 about

Moderated Mediation Analysis
To analyse our moderated mediation hypothesis (H5), we employed Hayes' (2013) Model 7, using 5000 boot straps. In our model, "belief in karma" (0 = absent, 1 = present) was the independent variable, while "life satisfaction" served as the key dependent variable. The underlying "motivation" (0 = negative, 1 = positive) for "materialism" was used as the moderator. As we had used "social comparison" as an independent variable in Study 1, we decided to control for this in Study 2. Finally, the three dimensions of "materialism", that is, success, centrality and happiness were used as mediators.
As can be seen from the topmost portion of Table 6A, "belief in karma" (in comparison to its absence) had a positive influence on the success dimension (β = 0.83, t = 4.14, p = 0.00), with this conditional on negative motivation. However, a change of underlying motivation from negative to positive reduced success (the two-way interaction between "belief in karma" and "motivation" was significant; (β = -1.56, t = -5.52, p = 0.00).
As shown in Table 6B, we find that success has a further positive influence on "life satisfaction" (which is the dependent variable) (β = 0.37, t = 5.33, p = 0.00). To explore this further, we consider the indirect effect of "belief in karma" on "life satisfaction" through success, as shown in the bottom portion of Table 6B. We find that, under negative  Table 6A and 6B about here

Overall Discussion
India is a vast South Asian country with a massive population of 1.34 billion, and a per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of US$1963.55 2 in 2017. The country's rising affluence will make it the third largest consumer market by 2025, with consumer expenditure projected to increase by three times to hit US$4 trillion (Rapoza, 2017). With rising incomes, multiplying global connections and the influx of new consumer goods, the new middle class across various cities in India has become the most viable market segment for multinational corporations (Upadhya, 2011). They also show a great deal of selfish materialism (Fuller and Narasimhan, 2007;Varma, 1999) and have become a "consuming class" (Fernandes, 2006). The current research employed two studies (Study 1 and Study 2) to understand how Indian consumers have embraced material consumption, especially given India's recent past deprivation and new-found economic success. The respondents of both studies reflected the characteristics of the 'new' Indian middle class in terms of their education, occupation and income level (Fuller and Narasimhan, 2007).
Study 1 of the current research proposed the notion that antecedents like social comparison and belief in karma encourage material values amongst the Indian middle class.
This was based on existing paradigms, such as value theory which posits that normative social forces encourage the adoption of the values of comparison groups (e.g., similar others). Furthermore, it was proposed that material values would drive life satisfaction. This is in line with the limited number of available studies which predict the positive influence of materialism on satisfaction and well-being, although this has not been tested amongst Indian consumers. Finally, we posited a boundary condition for the belief in karma-materialism relationship based on a limited number of studies which show that belief in karma can influence the motivation underlying a behaviour.
Findings from Study 1 (a survey) showed that both social comparison and belief in karma promoted material values amongst Indian consumers. Furthermore, material values had a significant influence on life satisfaction. The results of mediation analyses showed that material values fully (partially) mediated the relationship between social comparison (belief in karma) and life satisfaction. We followed this further with an experiment in Study 2 where belief in karma was manipulated. In addition, we manipulated the underlying motivation for materialism and used three dimensions of materialism (Richins, 2004) to explore the more nuanced patterns of the relationships.
Study 2 was conducted mainly to explore the boundary condition for the belief in karma-materialism relationship as well as to provide causal support for direct effects from Study 1. The findings showed that the belief in karma-materialism relationship is reinforced positively (negatively) when people had negative (positive) motivation underlying materialism. In other words, when people wanted to show off, belief in karma influenced their perceptions of success positively leading to greater life satisfaction. This finding aligns well with studies that show that religious values and belief in karma can promote selfcentred thoughts that encourage material values (Decety et al., 2015;Choudhury, 2014).
Through our results, we show that this happens amongst Indian consumers with respect to the success dimension of materialism. Our findings from Study 1 are also replicated, with results from Study 2 showing that belief in karma had a significant causal influence on the three dimensions of materialism.

Theoretical Implications
The findings of the current research have significant theoretical and managerial implications.
The study contributes to the existing literature on materialism and karmic belief in several ways. Firstly, the limited body of literature available shows that materialism can enhance well-being under certain situations, for example, in cases of prior economic deprivation, in certain Asian economies (Wong et al., 2003;Srivastava et al., 2001;Biswas-Diener and Diener, 2001). The current findings add to this literature and show that materialism can indeed enhance life satisfaction for Indians. This is important as materialism is on the rise amongst Indian consumers (Sharma, 2011) and no prior research in India has studied the influence of material values on life satisfaction. By doing so, the current work also addresses the need for more research (Chakravarti, 2006;Hill et al., 2012) to study the role of social comparison and materialism in the context of emerging economies.
Another interesting contribution of the current study is karmic belief's influence amongst Indian consumers. Earlier findings show that religious values may conflict with a person's material values (Burroughs and Rindfleisch, 2002). A growing number of studies, however, argue that religious values can support paradoxical views underpinning materialism (Minton et al., 2016;Sinha, 2014;Choudhury, 2014;Faure and Fang, 2008).
Our work contributes to this growing stream of literature and shows that belief in karma can indeed promote material values. The current study also contributes to a nascent and growing stream of research (e.g., Kulow and Kramer, 2016;Kopalle et al., 2010) that has relatively recently started to understand the role of belief in karma in influencing consumption behaviour.
Specifically, our findings extend the work of Kulow and Kramer (2016) by showing that people become self-focused not only when cued with gains, but that belief in karma can also lead people on the material path. Finally, the current research explores the boundary condition of belief in karma-materialism relationship. Existing studies (Sirgy et al., 2013;Srivastava et al., 2001) argue that materialism can be driven by its underlying motivation and recommend that further investigation should be undertaken. In fact, Srivastava et al. (2001) posit that motivation to seek wealth may be driven by positive motives (e.g., providing security or support family) or negative motives (e.g., overcoming self-doubt and showing-off). Extending this work, our finding shows that karmic belief increases life satisfaction when people want to show-off their wealth to others (i.e., negative motivation).
Such effect is reversed when people are driven by different motivation to accrue wealth, such as raising families (i.e., positive motivation).

Managerial Implications
Besides its theoretical contribution, this research also has significant practical implications.
Its findings offer useful insights to the managers about the Indian middle class, especially on individual differences among the consumers in terms of their religious (karmic) beliefs, motivations for material consumption, and their life satisfaction. The current findings show that karmic belief promotes materialism, which eventually influences life satisfaction. Kopalle et al. (2010) show that belief in karma is associated with a long-term orientation in individuals. The notion of karma also puts forward the view that an individual is free to choose what to do in the present or future (King, 1999). Based on the current and previous findings, marketers can influence karmic belief amongst Indian consumers to encourage them to work towards luxury acquisitions. An example would be an innovative long-term finance scheme that allows Indian consumers to work towards luxuries like iPhones.
Our findings regarding karma and underlying motivation has interesting implications too, especially in the context of marketing communications. For example, while promoting materialistic desires, marketers can engage persuasive appeals that highlight the underlying negative motivations (e.g., showing-off), while justifying such conspicuous consumption based on hard work. An appropriate vignette would be an individual boasting about his luxury car but attributing his/her success to individual efforts. Such positioning is likely to be effective if the right segment is targeted with the proposed marketing efforts.
Based on our findings, certain segments of the population are likely to nurture negative motivation to show off. Such negative motivation can be at work amongst educated Indian middle class or consumers who nurture high aspirations (e.g., people pursuing an MBA to make further progress in career and lives). They could further belong to either gender. As mentioned before, marketers can probably highlight acquiring of symbolic luxury goods in advertising messages to drive the notion of impressing others (e.g., peers). This proposed positioning, along with the innovative long-term finance scheme mentioned before, should help in increased market penetration amongst target consumers (middle class, high achievers).
In addition, drawing on our findings relating to social comparison and material values, marketers could communicate the notion of collective materialism (Awanis et al., 2017) through their promotional campaigns (e.g., advertisements showing acceptance by one's peers based on the purchase of a specific car model). Similarly, luxury brand manufacturers (e.g. multinationals) can target the burgeoning Indian middle class with their products. Multinationals can promote their products by motivating people to believe in their family orientations and self-aspirations (to consume luxury products), while working towards such goals.

Limitations and Future Research
The current study has its limitations. In our study, we found the positive effect of belief in karma and materialism on respondents' well-being and life satisfaction. This is contrary to previous findings (e.g., Dittmar et al., 2014) that materialism influences life satisfaction negatively. However, our work was restricted to the Indian middle class only. Based on the fact that karmic belief is accepted by other cultures (e.g., other Asian countries, Western society), our findings should generally hold. However, it would be interesting to empirically test our model amongst other developing countries (e.g., Thailand) where vast number of consumers are being created. Future work can also extend our study by looking at people who are living in poverty and are currently at the bottom of the societal pyramid, or it could look at the effect of karmic belief in the Western context. It is also possible that the relationship between materialism and life satisfaction is non-linear and that, beyond a certain point, materialism contributes negatively to life satisfaction. This could be investigated by future research. Finally, the current study was based on a single Indian metropolitan city, with this choice mainly driven by convenience. Future work could collect and analyse data from other Indian cities and from people from different social strata to enhance the study's external validity.