Many people hold some version of the belief that life events happen for a reason that outcomes reflect what we have done or deserve. This idea often appears in how karma is commonly understood in popular culture: a moral accounting system where good actions are rewarded and bad actions are punished.
The Appeal and Misinterpretation of Karma
In popular culture, karma is often portrayed as a cosmic judge, tracking right and wrong behaviour and delivering outcomes accordingly. When something bad happens, this can lead to thoughts like “What did I do to deserve this?” or “Is this payback?”
This belief can feel comforting. If outcomes are earned, the world feels more predictable and controllable, suggesting that doing the “right” things can prevent harm.
However, this popular interpretation is a significant departure from how karma is understood in its original context. While interpretations vary across religious and philosophical traditions, in Buddhist teachings karma refers primarily to volitional action, the intention behind what we do, and its effect on the mind and on future experience (see this youtube video for more information). It is not a system of external reward and punishment delivered by a cosmic force, and it does not imply that every negative event is deserved or that individuals are responsible for all outcomes they experience.
When karma is reduced to a “you get what you deserve” framework, it begins to resemble the just-world belief . For some people, this interpretation can become a lens through which they make sense of trauma, leading to beliefs such as “If this happened, I must have done something wrong” or “I must have deserved this.”
Beliefs like these follow a logic: something bad happened, therefore I must have caused it. In Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT), an evidence-based treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), this specific pattern of thinking is called outcome-based reasoning. It refers to judging a past decision or situation by its outcome, rather than by what you actually knew or could control at the time. Addressing this pattern is one of the central goals of CPT.
When Outcome-Based Reasoning Becomes a Problem
After trauma, outcome-based reasoning often sounds like:
- “If I had done something differently, this wouldn’t have happened.”
- “It’s my fault for trusting them.”
- “This happened because I made a bad choice.”
These thoughts are usually an attempt to make sense of what happened. However, they tend to generate self-blame, guilt, and shame that keep the PTSD cycle going (Holliday et al., 2018, Alpert et al., 2023). What outcome-based reasoning often fails to account for is both the information available at the time of the event and the person’s intentions. A person can only make decisions based on what they knew in that moment, and a decision made without any intent to cause harm, or to be harmed, is not a bad decision simply because harm followed.
How CPT Helps
CPT helps people identify and challenge thoughts driven by outcome-based reasoning. This can feel counterintuitive at first, because these thoughts often have a compelling internal logic. Rather than focusing on the outcome alone, CPT encourages questions like:
- What did I know at the time?
- What was within my control?
- What were my intentions when I made that decision?
- Am I judging this based on hindsight?
This process helps people distinguish between what people intended, what they could control or influence at the time of the traumatic event, and what actually happened.
Moving Toward a More Balanced Perspective
Letting go of the idea that all outcomes are deserved does not mean abandoning meaning or responsibility. Instead, it allows for a more realistic view: that actions can influence outcomes but do not fully determine them, and that some events are outside of personal control.
Take the Next Step
If you’re experiencing trauma-related symptoms or struggling with self-blame following a difficult event, one of our psychologists can help. To book an appointment at the Centre for Clinical Psychology, call (03) 9077 0122 or book online at www.ccp.net.au.
References
Alpert, E., Hayes, A. M., Barnes, J. B., & Sloan, D. M. (2023). Using client narratives to identify predictors of outcome in written exposure therapy and cognitive processing therapy. Behavior Therapy, 54(2), 185-199.
Holliday, R., Holder, N., & Surís, A. (2018). Reductions in self-blame cognitions predict PTSD improvements with cognitive processing therapy for military sexual trauma-related PTSD. Psychiatry Research, 263, 181-184.
