When Life Knocks You Down, What Helps You Stand Back Up?
Our new study points to three beliefs.
Posted February 20, 2026 | Reviewed by Tyler Woods
This article was co-authored with Dr. Nick Kerry , a social science researcher at the University of Vienna.
Whether it’s a serious illness, a sudden loss, or an act of violence, at some point, life will knock you down. Yet people differ greatly in how they respond; some suffer intense distress that lasts for years, while others recover more quickly.
Psychologists have long debated what causes these different reactions to hardship. Some proposals concerned primal world beliefs.
Primal world beliefs (often shortened to “primals” in academic research) are deep, generalized expectations about the nature of the world. They include beliefs about whether the world is safe or dangerous, beautiful or ugly—and many more.
Most people have a documented tendency to assume that negative primal world beliefs stem from going through terrible events. In fact, a classic psychological theory from the 1980s is that trauma shapes primals: namely, it shatters positive primal world beliefs (the theory is called “shattered assumptions theory”) and this in turn perhaps increases anxiety and depression .
But a growing body of research, including our new study, suggests something different might be going on.
Maybe instead of terrible events shaping primals afterwards , the primal world beliefs you held before it happened matter most.
Over the last few years, psychological researchers have become keenly interested in the possibility that primal world beliefs could act as filters that shape how we interpret events. For example, we have previously found that people who see the world as dangerous estimate many big threats (like getting murdered) at a rate about 4.2 times as high as those who see it as safe (comparing the top and bottom 20 percent). Another study showed that people who see the world as a slightly more negative place, even for a day, seem to use that lens to interpret the actions of their romantic partner as less warm, competent, and moral.
To examine whether prior primal world beliefs shape how people respond to difficult events (or if difficult events shape primal world beliefs), we conducted two studies focused on very different forms of adversity.
First, we surveyed those facing major health challenges—a combined sample of 551 cancer patients, cancer survivors, and individuals living with cystic fibrosis—and compared them to a group of 501 healthy people. Participants reported on their anxiety, depression, and primal world beliefs.
Second, a sample of University of Virginia students had been in the middle of a different study when, in November 2022, a shooting took place on campus, resulting in three student deaths and several further injuries, sheltering in place, the cancelling of classes, and lengthy disruptions. We examined survey answers from students who lived on campus before and after this tragic community event.
Finding #1: Primal world beliefs hardly changed
One of the most striking findings is what didn’t happen: on average, students’ primal world beliefs remained remarkably stable, even after the campus shooting. Similarly, people with cystic fibrosis scored no differently on world beliefs than a healthy control group. The only group that reported slightly more negative beliefs were people with a current cancer diagnosis, but those in remission again scored the same as controls—the change didn’t seem to last.
These results suggest that the emotional impact of adversity is unlikely to depend on adversity changing our primal world beliefs.
But what if people’s baseline primal world beliefs — before the event even happens — influence how they respond to adverse events?
Finding #2: Prior primal world beliefs predicted how much distress people experienced
Across both studies, people’s baseline primal world beliefs were strongly tied to how much distress they experienced. This also wasn’t just about a general belief that the world is good or bad beliefs—it was much more specific.
Three specific beliefs stood out in the first study:
People who held these three beliefs—more so than Safe world belief, Beautiful world belief, Meaningful world belief, and so forth—showed significantly less anxiety and depression in the face of serious illness.
In fact, those with these three beliefs often looked no more distressed than people who had not experienced illness at all.
In the campus study, we did not have data on all these specific primal world beliefs. However, one primal that emerged as especially critical was the belief that the world is safe, which is closely related to the beliefs that the world is fair and regenerative. Students low in Safe world belief showed clear increases in stress after the shooting. Students who believed the world is safe showed little to no change in distress.
We thought at first that perhaps just being an optimistic person might explain these results. However, the protective effects of these beliefs were too specific. Overall belief that the world is good—the primal most connected to optimism—was less important.
So why these three beliefs?
In the study, we hypothesized that, when a devastating life event occurs, there are perhaps only three routes for improving the situation.
First, you or another person makes it better (easier to think if you see the world as generally malleable).
Second, a higher power or karmic force intervenes (easier to think if you see the world as a place that tends to be fair).
Third, the situation naturally gets better on its own (easier to think if you see the world as a place that tends to regenerate, rather than fall apart).
Can these beliefs change?
Although primal world beliefs often don't change much in daily life, research suggests they can shift under the right conditions. For example, people can refocus on a specific quality in the world or change in response to therapeutic intervention. This raises the possibility that cultivating certain world beliefs could support emotional resilience . But we didn’t test that directly, so more research is needed for us to know for sure whether we can change these beliefs to influence how people later respond to adversity.
Illness, fear , loss, and sudden shocks are a part of life. Our findings suggest a new way to be prepared for them: seeing the world in general as improvable, fair, and naturally prone to regenerate.
These beliefs will not change the bad event that happened to you. These beliefs will not stop you from getting knocked down.
But they might help you find the courage and strength to stand back up.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1989). Assumptive worlds and the stress of traumatic events: Applications of the schema construct. Social Cognition , 7 (2), 113-136. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1989.7.2.113
Kerry, N., Hämpke, J., Wood, A., Tsang, S., Barrantine, K., Oishi, S., White, K. C., & Clifton, J. D. W. (2025). World beliefs moderate the effects of trauma and severe illness on emotional distress. Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.70031 .
Kerry, N., White, K. C., O'Brien, M., Perry, L., & Clifton, J. D. W. (2023). Despite popular intuition, positive world beliefs poorly reflect several objective indicators of privilege, including wealth, health, sex, and neighborhood safety. Journal of Personality . Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12877
Lemay, E. P., & Cutri, J. N. (2024): Implications of daily world beliefs for relationship satisfaction: The role of positive relationship illusions. The Journal of Positive Psychology . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2024.2387352
Share this post Facebook Bluesky Linkedin Email
There was a problem adding your email address. Please try again.
This article is part of the Bringwise Psychology Journal — daily insights on human behavior, mental health, and personal growth.