New research published in the Journal of Personality provides evidence that fundamental assumptions about the nature of the world can protect individuals from the psychological fallout of severe illness and trauma. The study indicates that these beliefs act as a psychological buffer, allowing some individuals to maintain well-being despite facing significant adversity.
Psychologists have sought to understand why people react so differently to tragedy. Some individuals experience debilitating distress after a negative event, while others display remarkable resilience.
Previous theories proposed that trauma causes psychological damage by shattering a person’s core assumptions about safety and meaning. This perspective implies that the negative event itself alters the person’s worldview, leading to despair.
However, newer research suggests that these fundamental worldviews are actually quite stable. Rather than being easily shattered, these beliefs may persist over time and shape how a person interprets new information.
“Our project, led by my colleague and co-author, Jeremy Clifton, focuses on the psychological significance of generalized beliefs about the world – things like ‘the world is safe’ or ‘the world is dangerous,’” said study author Nicholas Kerry, a research associate at the University of Vienna.
“These beliefs are surprisingly stable within people; if you ask someone how safe or dangerous they think the world is and then ask again six months later, you usually get almost the same answer. And there’s growing evidence that these beliefs shape how people interpret many different situations.”
“For example, someone who believes the world is generally safe might notice or prioritize information that fits that view and interpret ambiguous situations as relatively harmless. Someone who believes the world is dangerous might interpret the same situation very differently. One person might see a violent incident as a freak event that’s unlikely to happen again, while another might treat it as proof that violence is everywhere—leading to much greater anxiety about what might happen next.”
“Based on that reasoning, we wondered whether these broad world beliefs could help explain why people respond so differently when stressful or traumatic events occur. Do these beliefs make some people more vulnerable to stress, anxiety, or depression—and help buffer others? That was the core question driving this study. ”
The researchers focused on a specific set of beliefs regarding the character of the world. These included the belief that the world is “Safe” versus dangerous, “Improvable” versus static, “Just” versus unfair, and “Regenerative” versus degenerative. A regenerative world belief implies that the natural tendency of the universe is to heal, stabilize, and get better, rather than to decay.
To test this, the researchers conducted two distinct studies. The first study utilized a cross-sectional design to examine the relationship between chronic illness and emotional distress. The researchers recruited a total of 1,052 participants. This sample included four distinct groups: 74 current cancer patients, 351 cancer survivors, 117 individuals with cystic fibrosis, and a control group of 484 healthy volunteers.
Participants completed the Primals Inventory, a validated scale designed to measure fundamental world beliefs. They also completed standard measures of anxiety and depression from the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System. The researchers then analyzed whether the link between having a serious illness and feeling distressed depended on the participant’s world beliefs.
The results from the first study showed a clear pattern of moderation. Among participants with low levels of belief that the world is improvable, just, or regenerative, those with chronic illnesses reported significantly higher levels of anxiety and depression than healthy controls. This aligns with the intuitive expectation that serious illness leads to distress.
However, the pattern was different for those with positive world beliefs. For participants who strongly believed the world is improvable, just, and regenerative, there was no statistical difference in emotional distress between those with a severe illness and the healthy control group.
The data suggests that for these individuals, the objective reality of a serious disease did not translate into the expected psychological suffering. The researchers found that these specific beliefs were more effective buffers than simply having a generally optimistic outlook.
The second study took a different approach by examining a sudden, acute trauma. This study capitalized on a longitudinal dataset that was being collected when a tragedy occurred. Researchers were tracking 152 university students for a different project when a mass shooting took place on their campus. This allowed the team to compare stress levels before and after the event.
The students completed surveys at three time points. The first wave occurred in September, two months before the shooting. The second wave took place in November, roughly nine days after the incident. The final wave was collected in March, four months post-event. The survey measured perceived stress and the “Safe” world belief, which assesses the extent to which a person views the world as free from constant threat.
The analysis focused on how trait-level beliefs predicted changes in stress. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, students who viewed the world as a dangerous place reported a significant spike in stress. This elevated stress persisted into the final wave of data collection four months later. The data indicates that for these students, the shooting confirmed a negative worldview and resulted in lasting distress.
In contrast, students who held a high “Safe” world belief prior to the shooting showed a different trajectory. These individuals reported no significant increase in perceived stress either immediately after the event or four months later. Despite being in the vicinity of a major threat to safety, their fundamental assumption that the world is safe appeared to shield them from the stress response typically associated with such events.
The study also found that the shooting did not significantly alter the students’ world beliefs. Beliefs regarding safety remained stable from the first wave to the third. This supports the idea that these beliefs function as stable traits rather than temporary states that fluctuate with daily events. It reinforces the authors’ proposition that world beliefs shape our reaction to trauma, rather than trauma primarily shaping our beliefs.
“One takeaway is that we all carry around broad assumptions about what to expect from the world. These beliefs may act like filters: sometimes they help us, and sometimes they make things harder. Our findings suggest that how you see the world could be important for how people cope with very difficult experiences.”
“People who believed the world is improvable, fair, regenerative, or generally safe were less likely to experience heightened anxiety or depression after serious illness or after being in the vicinity of a mass shooting. In some cases, people with the most positive world beliefs looked no worse off than individuals who had never experienced the negative event at all.”
“In other words, these generalized world beliefs don’t determine what happens to you—but they may contribute to how deeply those events affect you emotionally.”
As with all research, there are some limitations. The first study was cross-sectional, meaning it captured data at a single point in time. This makes it difficult to definitively prove that the beliefs caused the resilience, although the pattern is consistent with that conclusion. It is possible that other unmeasured factors contributed to the well-being of the participants.
The second study, while longitudinal, had a relatively small sample size of university students. This may limit how well the findings apply to the general population or to different types of trauma.
Future research is needed to determine if these beliefs can be changed through intervention. If specific world beliefs act as protective buffers, it may be possible to foster resilience by helping individuals cultivate these views. Cognitive-behavioral therapies already focus on altering maladaptive thoughts. Focusing on deeper, more generalized assumptions about the universe could be a viable avenue for treatment.
The researchers also suggest that future studies should examine a wider range of traumatic events. Investigating how these beliefs function in the face of natural disasters, bereavement, or economic hardship would provide a more complete picture. Understanding the specific mechanisms by which these beliefs reduce distress could lead to more targeted psychological support.
The study, “World Beliefs Moderate the Effects of Trauma and Severe Illness on Emotional Distress,” was authored by Nicholas Kerry, Janna Hämpke, Adrienne Wood, Shelly Tsang, Kyle Barrantine, Shigehiro Oishi, K. C. White, and Jeremy D. W. Clifton.
