Stoicism and the good life - OSF

Running head: STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 1

Stoicism and the good life1

Johannes Alfons Karl1 & Ronald Fischer12

1 Victoria University of Wellington3

Author Note4

The pre-registration, material, and analytical code for this study can be found on the5

OSF (https://osf.io/bkqgs/?view_only=0bdc04bf606b41b9a1ac4ba0c7658990)6

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Johannes Alfons Karl,7

Kelburn Parade. E-mail: [email protected]

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 2

Abstract9

Ancient philosophy identified a wide range of possible approaches to life which are10

supposed to enable wellbeing. The stoic approach to life focused on emotional restraint and11

an overall orientation towards meaning in life. While few individuals are explicit adherents12

to stoicism, individuals can also adopt an approach to life representing a naive stoic13

ideology. While in the past this approach has been largely investigated in relation to ideals14

of masculinity, recently the focus has widened to examine how stoic ideology might be15

related to wellbeing across individuals. While initial research focusing on hedonic16

conceptualizations of wellbeing has found substantial negative effects of stoic ideology, no17

study so far has examined the differential effects that stoic ideology might have on18

eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing. In this pre-registered study, 636 participants reported19

their stoic ideology, eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing, as well as their orientations to20

happiness. Overall, we found that the recently developed measure of stoic ideology showed21

good measurement properties and we confirmed the negative effects of stoic beliefs on22

hedonic wellbeing observed in previous studies. Additionally, we found that in contrast to23

our hypothesis stoic ideology significantly negatively predicted eudaimonic wellbeing and24

eudaimonic wellbeing orientation, as well as engagement in life. This indicates that a naive25

endorsement of stoic ideology might be detrimental to individuals’ wellbeing independent26

of the specific aspect.27

Keywords: stoicism; wellbeing; orientations to happiness28

Word count: 395229

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 3

Stoicism and the good life30

What is a good life? Over the course of human history many different answers to this31

question have been suggested. One school of thought that rose to answering this question32

were the Stoics. Stoic philosophy, as most ancient Greek schools, lectured on a range of33

topics from meta-physics to logic but is today possibly best known for their propositions in34

the field of ethics. While few people explicitly follow stoic doctrine in modern times, stoic35

ideology is still implicitly embraced by individuals (Pathak, Wieten, & Wheldon, 2017;36

Sherman, 2011). For example, Stoic ideology has long been endorsed by military personnel37

to reduce combat stress (Sherman, 2011).38

Stoic Ideology. One of the reasons why stoicism might be so salient in the39

military is due to the traditional gender skew of this field. Stoicism in the past has been40

thought to be strongly tied to traditional conceptualizations of masculinity (Perry, Stacy,41

& Pepper, 2019; Scoats & Robinson, 2020), with research indicating some support for this42

view (Pathak et al., 2017), nevertheless, the differences between male and female43

respondents was not as substantial as expected (Pathak et al., 2017). Currently it is44

unclear whether these gender differences are by-products of measurement artifacts or45

whether actual differences in stoic ideology are captured. Therefore, one of our aims is to46

provide further information on differences between gender in our sample.47

This is especially important as stoicism and the resulting lack in help seeking has48

been identified as potential source of male health issues and low wellbeing. While stoicism49

in males has been investigated in the past through the lens of illbeing, stoicism has also50

been related to wellbeing. Stoic thought has profoundly influenced Cognitive Behavioral51

Therapy (Robertson, 2016, 2019) and plays an important role in the treatment of anxiety52

and depression (Watts, Turnell, Kladnitski, Newby, & Andrews, 2015). Stoic philosophy53

has long influenced psychology, but little attention has been paid how individuals differ in54

their endorsement of stoic ideologies (for a thorough review of ancient stoicism and modern55

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 4

revivals we recommend Becker, 2017). Initial scales measuring stoicism mostly focused on a56

single dimensional construct assessed by past behaviors (for a review of past scales see57

Pathak et al., 2017). Recently a scale of stoic ideology has been developed, the58

Pathak-Wieten Stoicism Ideology Scale (PWSIS; Pathak et al., 2017), allowing for the59

assessment of individuals implicit endorsement of stoic ideology. This scale assesses stoic60

ideology comprised of four facets, Stoic Taciturnity (the belief that emotions should not be61

expressed), Stoic Serenity (the belief that strong emotions should not be felt), Stoic62

Endurance (the belief that physical suffering should be endured), and Death Acceptance63

(accepting mortality, rather than fearing it). The PWSIS captures essential elements of64

Stoic philosophy, mostly focusing on emotion expression. Importantly, the PWSIS captures65

what could be called naive stoic ideologies, in the sense that it is not expected that66

individuals scoring high on it have systematic knowledge of Stoicism as ordered school of67

thought. The fact that the PWSIS measures these naive ideologies precludes the68

investigation of some aspects of stoic thinking that are important in the philosophical69

system, such as the emphasis on vices and virtues or emphasis on emotional control in70

stressful situations (this was originally a facet of the PWSIS, but showed unfavorable71

psychometric properties). So, what does this stoic ideology imply for individuals’72

wellbeing? Past research has shown negative relationship of stoicism and life satisfaction as73

well as positive relationships between stoicism and depression (Bei et al., 2013; Murray et74

al., 2008). Overall, this might lead to the conclusion that embracing stoic ideologies75

reduces wellbeing. But what exactly is meant with wellbeing?76

Eudaimonic and Hedonic Wellbeing. The two major dimensions of wellbeing77

identified in philosophy and psychology are hedonia and eudaimonia (Ryan & Deci, 2001).78

Hedonic wellbeing is defined by subjective happiness, positive feelings, and the absence of79

negative feelings. Overall, hedonic wellbeing could be summarized as a life full of pleasure80

and free of pain. This is contrasted by eudaimonic wellbeing which emphasizes on meaning81

and purpose in life. The distinction of eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing have been shown82

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 5

to differentiate between a wide range of validation variables such as long-term orientation83

(Huta & Ryan, 2010; Joshanloo, Jovanović, & Park, 2020; Vittersø & Søholt, 2011).84

Neverthless, eudaimonia and hedonia tend to be correlated at very high levels (see for85

examples: Fowers, Mollica, & Procacci, 2010; Extremera, Ruiz-Aranda, Pineda-Galán, &86

Salguero, 2011; Yoon et al., 2015). Taken together that while eudaimonic and hedonic87

wellbeing are not necessarily opposite, they can be the results of different underlying88

psychological processes (Huta, 2016).89

Stoicism and Wellbeing. Viewed through a stoic lens, eudaimonia should be90

preferred over hedonia. Late stoic writers such as Epictetus outlined a philosophy with the91

telos (end) of eudaimonia (meaning, flourishing) which can be achieved by living a virtuous92

life (Ierodiakonou, 2015; Long, 2002). A virtuous life was determined as a life following93

reason, dedicated to fulfilling ones role in life. Based on this conceptualization of virtue,94

Stoics divided everything into three categories: virtue (acts in accordance with reason),95

vice (acts contrary to reason), and indifferents (all acts not classified as vice or virtue).96

While there is no gradient from vice to virtue, Stoics differentiate indifferents in preferred97

indifferents (enabling reason, such as health), disprefered indifferents (diminishing reasons,98

such as pain), and absolute indifferents (the color of your wall) (for a discussion of99

indifferents in stoic thought see Inwood, 2003; Becker, 2017). This division implied a rank100

order of importance: virtues are preferable over indifferents, indifferents over vices101

(Inwood, 2003). This leads to adherents of Stoicism sometimes prioritizing acts over102

hedonic wellbeing or health if they enable reason and are beneficial to eudaimonic103

wellbeing (Becker, 2003, 2017). While the stoic view of wellbeing has received substantial104

discussion in philosophy (for an in-depth discussion see Inwood, 2003), it has received only105

limited empirical attention in psychology.106

The link between stoicism and wellbeing has been largely investigated through a107

hedonic lens (e.g, Murray et al., 2008) and was found to negatively relate to life satisfaction108

and positively to depression (Bei et al., 2013; Murray et al., 2008). While this negative109

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 6

effect might be true for hedonic wellbeing, Stoicism is an explicitly eudaimonic theory of110

wellbeing, prioritizing meaning over pleasure. For example, adherents to stoic philosophy,111

naive or explicit, try to avoid strong emotions, positive as well as negative, but this might112

not apply to feelings of meaning and general eudaimonia. Currently no research is available113

that directly compares the effects of stoic ideology on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being.114

Based on the subordination of hedonic wellbeing to eudaimonic wellbeing in stoic theory115

we hypothesized that stoic ideology is negatively related to hedonic wellbeing and116

positively related to eudaimonic wellbeing.1117

Orientation to Happiness. Individuals differ not only in the levels of wellbeing118

they obtain, but also in their orientation towards different kinds of wellbeing. As can be119

seen in the case of Stoics, some approaches to life put primacy on one type of wellbeing (for120

example eudaimonia). Psychologists have identified three major orientations to happiness,121

a focus on pleasure (hedonia), a focus on meaning (eudaimonia), and a focus on122

engagement in life (flow, focusing on absorption rather than pleasure or meaning).123

Endorsing a specific orientation does not necessarily entail obtaining the corresponding124

aspect of wellbeing, but indicates behavioral preferences towards certain wellbeing related125

behaviors (Henderson, Knight, & Richardson, 2014). Stoic thinking holds that striving for126

hedonistic pleasure (or passions) is in itself irrational and should therefore be avoided. This127

is contrasted by good passions (or Eupatheiai) which can either be oriented to a good128

future (Volition, boulêsis) expressed as rational desire, or present oriented (Joy, chara)129

which are often expressed as joy about ones position in the cosmos (for an in-depth130

discussion of these concepts see, Wolfsdorf, 2009). Taken together this implies that while131

stoic ideology holds a negative perspective on hedonistic orientations, it endorses rational132

desire and feelings of meaning. Similarly, modern approaches to stoic thought capture an133

in-discriminant rejection of emotionality (both positive and negative) in items such as: “I134

expect myself to avoid feeling intense emotions.” (Pathak et al., 2017). Based on this, we135

1 This was our second hypothesis in our pre-registration, for readability reasons we bring it first in text.

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 7

predicted that stoic ideology would show substantial positive relationships with meaning136

orientation (capturing rational desire), but a negative relationship with hedonic orientation137

(focus on hedonic rewards). We therefore hypothesized: Stoicism is positively related to138

eudaimonic orientation and negatively to hedonic orientation to happiness.139

Methods140

Participants141

We pre-registered that we would sample 400 undergraduate psychology students142

taking part in an introductory course to psychology. This sample size would have given us143

the ability to detect a two-sided effect of r = .14 with a power of .80 and an α error144

probability of .05. Because the endorsement of stoic ideology was strongly tied to a male145

gender identity in the past, we aimed to sample an even number of participants identifying146

as male and female through sign-up quotas. Due to changes in participant availability we147

offered the study to 710 participants of which 636 decided to participate, exceeding our148

initial goal. Our sample was largely female (75.16%) with an average age of 19.06 years149

(SD = 3.12).150

Material151

Stoic Ideology. We measured stoic ideology using the twelve item Pathak-Wieten152

Stoicism Ideology Scale (PWSIS, Pathak et al., 2017). The scale measures four constructs153

Endurance (“I expect myself to hide my aches and pains from others.”), Taciturnity (“I154

don’t believe in talking about my personal problems.”), Serenity (“I would prefer to be155

unemotional.”), and Death Acceptance (“I would not allow myself to be bothered by the156

fear of death.”). All items were measured on a scale from 1-(“Disagree”) to 5-(“Agree”).157

Before the main analysis all items will were recoded to range from -2 to +2 following the158

original scoring instructions.159

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 8

Orientation to Happiness. We measured participants orientation to happiness160

using the eighteen item orientation to happiness questionnaire (Peterson, Park, &161

Seligman, 2005). This questionnaire assesses three dimensions: “A life of pleasure”, “A life162

of meaning”, “A life of engagement”. The six items per scale were rated on a 5-point Likert163

scale ranging from 1 (“Very much unlike me”) to 7 (“Very much like me”). Example items164

for each dimension are: “Life is too short to postpone the pleasures it can provide.”165

(Pleasure), “I have a responsibility to make the world a better place.” (Meaning), and “I166

am always very absorbed in what I do.” (Engagement).167

Eudaimonic Wellbeing.168

Flourishing. The Flourishing scale is a eight-item measure assessing individuals169

self-perceived success in relationships as well as self-esteem, purpose, and optimism (Diener170

et al., 2010). Participants responded on a Likert scale from 1-(“Strongly disagree”) to171

7-(“Strongly agree”). An example item is, “I am a good person and live a good life”.172

Meaning in Life. The Meaning in Life Questionnaire (Steger, Frazier, Oishi, &173

Kaler, 2006) assesses the presence and search for meaning with ten items measures on a174

seven point Likert-scale ranging from 1-(“Absolutely untrue”) to 7-(“Absolutely true”). To175

measure eudaimonic wellbeing we will use the five item presence of meaning sub-scale,176

separating out the search for meaning sub-scale as it is conceptually different. An example177

item is, “I understand my life’s meaning”.178

Hedonic Wellbeing.179

Subjective happiness. The subjective happiness scale (Lyubomirsky & Lepper,180

1999) is a four-item measure of global happiness measured on a Likert scale from 1 to 7.181

The item anchors are relative to the items, first pair of items are anchored at 1-(“Less182

happy”) and 7-(More happy), the second pair of items are anchored at 1-(Not at all) to183

7-(A great deal).184

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 9

Satisfaction with life. The Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener, Emmons,185

Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) is a five-item measure of present, global life satisfaction, which186

comprise a cognitive judgment of a person’s quality of life. Participants responded on a187

Likert scale from 1-(“Strongly disagree”) to 7-(“Strongly agree”). An example item is, “I188

am satisfied with my current life”.189

The Structure of wellbeing. The classification of the scales as hedonic or190

eudaimonic was based on previous large scale research and reviews (Cooke, Melchert, &191

Connor, 2016; Disabato, Goodman, Kashdan, Short, & Jarden, 2016). We tested the fit of192

the proposed two factor model using an MLR estimator to account for multi-variate193

non-normality and found that it showed good fit to the data (χ2(204) = 541.04,CFI = 0.94,194

RMSEA = 0.059[0.053,0.066], SRMR = 0.04). We compared this model to three other195

models; the first model included the correlated wellbeing facets, the second model had all196

wellbeing facets subsumed under eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing which was subsumed197

under a higher order factor of wellbeing, the third model was a unifactorial model in which198

all wellbeing facets loaded onto a higher order factor of wellbeing. The comparison can be199

found in Table 3. While Eudaimonia and Hedonia showed a substantial relationship (the200

full model can be found in Figure 1), we nevertheless decided to retain the separate201

dimensions because the model showed good fir and for theoretical reasons. We show the202

reliability for all scales in Table 1. The reliability across measures was acceptable with203

Serenity showing low α reliability but good reliability across the other indicators.204

OTH-Pleasure showed low α and ω reliability, but acceptable reliability on the remaining205

measures. Overall, to keep consistency with previous research we decided to not remove206

any items.207

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 10

Results208

Equivalence of the PWSIS between Genders209

Because the PWSIS has shown substantial differences between male and female210

respondents in the past (e.g. Pathak et al., 2017), we wanted to test whether these211

differences are due to non-invariance of the PWSIS. To test this, we fitted two different212

models of the PWIS. Model A included the PWSIS facets, but no higher order factor of213

stoicism and Model B included the PWSIS facets and a higher order factor of Stoicism. All214

models were fitted with a MLR estimator in lavaan to correct for multi-variate215

non-normality in the presence of missing data. Model A (correlated facets) showed good216

configural fit (CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.057[0.045,0.07], SRMR = 0.05). The model also217

showed no substantial drop in fit when constrained to be metrically equivalent across male218

and female participants (∆CFI = 0.00) and no substantial drop in CFI (defined as ∆CFI >219

.01, Fischer & Karl, 2019) when the intercepts were constrained to be equal (∆CFI =220

0.00), indicating that the model showed scalar equivalence between male and female221

respondents. Model B showed similar configural fit (CFI = 0.95, RMSEA =222

0.058[0.046,0.07], SRMR = 0.05). The model also showed no substantial drop in fit when223

constrained to be metrically equivalent across male and female participants (∆CFI = 0.00)224

and no substantial drop in CFI when the intercepts were constrained to be equal across225

male and female participants (∆CFI = 0.00). Overall, this indicates that the PWSIS is226

suitable to compare stoic ideology across male and female respondents.227

We compared the mean differences between male and female participants in overall228

stoicism and found a significant difference (∆M = −0.18, 95% CI [−0.31, −0.05],229

t(248.98) = −2.76, p = .006, d = -0.259[-0.444, -0.073]), indicating that male participants230

had higher levels of stoic ideology. We also compared the facets of stoicism between male231

and female participants and found a significant effect of Facet (F (3, 2, 467) = 47.45,232

MSE = 0.97, p < .001, ω2 = 0.053), Gender (F (3, 2, 467) = 47.45, MSE = 0.97, p < .001,233

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 11

ω2 = 0.005), and a significant interaction of Facet and Gender (F (3, 2, 467) = 4.04,234

MSE = 0.97, p = .007, ω2 = 0.003). To assess the pairwise differences between male and235

female participants for each of the facets adjusting for the sample size difference between236

males and females, we used the equally weighted estimated marginal means using the fitted237

ANOVA model. We found that female participants had significantly lower Death238

Acceptance (µ = -0.34, t(2,467.00) = -3.70) and Endurance (µ = -0.30, t(2,467.00) =239

-3.22) compared to male participants, but showed no differences on Taciturnity (µ = -0.16,240

t(2,467.00) = -1.71) or Serenity (µ = 0.07, t(2,467.00) = 0.77). This indicates that while241

overall males score higher on stoic ideology the difference seems to largely stem from242

differences in expression of bodily pain and fear of death. We show a visualization of the243

results in Figure 2244

Hypothesis 1 (Eudaimonic Orientation of Stoicism)245

To test our first pre-registered hypothesis, we ran a path-model with observed246

indicators and 1000 bootstraps in which stoicism predicted meaning and pleasure247

orientations to happiness. We predicted that stoic ideology would be positively related to a248

meaning orientation to happiness, in contrast we found that stoicism negatively predicted249

meaning orientation (β = -0.12[-0.20, -0.05], p < .001). We also predicted that stoic250

ideology would negatively predict hedonic orientation; in contrast to that we found that251

stoicism was not significantly related to hedonic orientation (β = 0.03[-0.05, 0.10], p =252

0.51). Overall, these findings did not support our hypothesis that stoic ideology would be253

related to greater orientation towards meaning.254

Hypothesis 2 (Positive Effect of Stoicism on Eudaimonic Wellbeing)255

To test our second pre-registered hypothesis, we ran a path-model with observed256

indicators and1000 bootstraps in which stoicism predicted eudaimonic and hedonic257

well-being. We predicted that stoic ideology would be positively related to a eudaimonic258

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 12

wellbeing, in contrast we found that stoicism negatively predicted eudaimonic wellbeing (β259

= -0.30[-0.37, -0.23], p < .001). We also predicted that stoic ideology would negatively260

predict hedonic wellbeing; this was supported (β = -0.36[-0.43, -0.29], p < .001). While261

stoicism negatively predicted both eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing, the relationship262

between stoicism and eudaimonic wellbeing was substantially weaker compared to hedonic263

wellbeing (µhed_sto-eud_sto = -0.06[-0.12, -0.005], p = 0.03). Overall, these results indicate264

that while stoic ideology has less negative relationships with eudaimonic wellbeing265

compared to hedonic wellbeing it might still be detrimental.266

Exploratory Analyses267

The relationship between stoicism sub-facets and orientations to268

happiness. In our pre-registration, we proposed a number of exploratory analyses to269

further explore the relationship between wellbeing and stoicism. We first re-ran the270

analysis conducted for the first hypothesis (Pleasure/Meaning Orientation to Happiness271

predicted by Stoicism), splitting up stoicism into its individual facets. We found that272

meaning orientation was significantly negatively predicted by Serenity (β = -0.14[-0.23,273

-0.05],p < .001) and Taciturnity (β = -0.14[-0.25, -0.03], p = 0.02), but not by Endurance274

(β = 0.06[-0.04, 0.16], p = 0.23) or Death Acceptance (β = 0.06[-0.01, 0.14], p = 0.11). In275

contrast, none of the Stoicism facets showed a significant relationship with pleasure276

orientation: Serenity (β = 0.00[-0.09, 0.09], p = 1.00); Taciturnity (β = -0.08[-0.19, 0.04], p277

= 0.18); Endurance (β = 0.08[-0.02, 0.19], p = 0.12); Death Acceptance (β = 0.05[-0.03,278

0.13], p = 0.25). Overall, this indicates that the negative relationships between Stoicism279

and meaning orientation are driven by Serenity and Taciturnity. An endorsement of these280

two facets of stoic ideology might foster general disengagement resulting in a lower281

meaning orientation.282

The relationship between stoicism sub-facets and wellbeing. Our second283

exploratory analysis repeated the analysis of our second hypothesis (Stoicism predicting284

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 13

hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing), but separated the general factor of stoicism into its285

individual facets. Eudaimonic wellbeing was significantly negatively predicted by Serenity286

(β = -0.09[-0.18, -0.01], p = 0.04) and Taciturnity (β = -0.27[-0.37, -0.16], p < .001), but287

not by Endurance (β = -0.06[-0.16, 0.03], p = 0.19) or Death Acceptance (β = 0.06[-0.01,288

0.14], p = 0.11). Hedonic wellbeing was significantly negatively predicted by Taciturnity (β289

= -0.26[-0.36, -0.16], =p < .001) and Endurance (β = -0.11[-0.21, -0.02], p = 0.02) , but290

not by Serenity (β = -0.06[-0.14, 0.03], p = 0.18) or Death Acceptance (β = -0.03[-0.10,291

0.04], p = 0.43).2292

The relationship between stoicism and engagement in life. The orientation293

to happiness scale included an additional factor measuring participants engagement in life.294

In our pre-registration we specified that we would explore the relationship between stoicism295

and this facet. We initially regressed this facet on participants overall score of stoicism and296

found that stoicism was related to lower engagement (b = −0.21, 95% CI [−0.30, −0.11],297

t(625) = −4.31, p < .001, R2 = .03, 90% CI [0.01, 0.05], F (1, 625) = 18.57, p < .001). We298

subsequently ran a linear model in which engagement was predicted by the facets of299

stoicism. We found that only Taciturnity significantly predicted lower Engagement300

(b = −0.11, 95% CI [−0.20, −0.01], t(621) = −2.18, p = .030), we did not find a significant301

relationship between engagement and Endurance (b = −0.03, 95% CI [−0.11, 0.06],302

t(621) = −0.58, p = .562), Serenity (b = −0.08, 95% CI [−0.17, 0.01], t(621) = −1.72,303

p = .086), or Death Acceptance (b = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.05, 0.09], t(621) = 0.64, p = .521).304

Overall, this indicates that stoicism is related to lower engagement in life, but this effect305

2 Because endurance did differ between male and female respondents (together with death acceptance), we

extended this exploratory analysis and included gender as exogenous variable. We examined the possible

mediating effect of endurance and death acceptance on hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing. Overall we

found no significant mediation by death acceptance, but endurance showed a significant negative mediating

effect (β = -0.01[-0.03, -0.0013)], p = 0.03) of endurance on the relationship between gender and hedonic

wellbeing. While male and female participants did not directly differ in their hedonic wellbeing men might

report lower hedonic wellbeing due to lower help seeking for bodily ailments

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 14

might be mainly driven by Taciturnity and possibly Serenity. Taciturnity and Serenity306

might capture general detachment.307

The relationship between stoicism and search for meaning. Last, we were308

interested how Stoicism is related to search for meaning in in life. We initially ran a linear309

regression between Stoicism and Meaning in Life-Searching and found a significant positive310

relationship (b = 0.16, 95% CI [0.03, 0.30], t(617) = 2.42, p = .016, R2 = .02, 90% CI [0.00,311

0.04], F (5, 617) = 2.72, p = .019). We subsequently ran a path model in which Meaning in312

Life-Searching was predicted by the facets of stoicism. We found that none of the facets313

was significantly related to Meaning in Life-Searching: Taciturnity (b = 0.09, 95% CI314

[−0.04, 0.22], t(621) = 1.33, p = .183), Endurance (b = 0.03, 95% CI [−0.08, 0.15],315

t(621) = 0.57, p = .572), Serenity (b = 0.00, 95% CI [−0.13, 0.13], t(621) = 0.06, p = .950),316

Death Acceptance (b = −0.01, 95% CI [−0.11, 0.08], t(621) = −0.28, p = .779).317

Discussion318

Our current research addressed the question how participants’ endorsement of stoic319

ideology is related to their orientation to happiness and different types of wellbeing.320

Overall, we found that endorsement of stoic ideology is negatively related to meaning321

orientation, as well as to eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing. This was in contrast to our322

pre-registered hypotheses where we expected greater meaning orientation and eudaimonic323

wellbeing.324

Stoicism and Gender325

Stoicism has long been thought to be a quality of traditional masculinity. The initial326

study on the PWSIS (Pathak et al., 2017) found only small differences in overall stoicism327

between male and female respondents. Nevertheless, it was unclear whether these328

differences represent true differences or captured differential responding to the measure.329

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 15

Therefore, as a first step we examined the measurement equivalence of the PWSIS across330

male and female respondents. We found that the measure exhibited scalar equivalence331

between male and female participants, indicating that means can be compared and are not332

shifted by response biases. We confirmed the findings of the initial study and found a small333

but significant difference in overall stoicisim between male and female respondents, which334

mostly stemmed from differences in Endurance and Death Acceptance. Overall, this335

provides a more nuanced picture on previous claims that stoicism is a male trait. One336

reason for the small observed differences in our study and the original study by Pathak et337

al. (2017) might be the sample composition, both studies used a sample of young adults338

which might adhere less to traditional conceptualization of masculinity (Scoats &339

Robinson, 2020).340

Beyond these gender differences, we were interested how stoicism is related to341

wellbeing. We predicted that Stoicism would be positively related to eudaimonic wellbeing342

and negatively to hedonic wellbeing. Consistent with previous studies (for example Bei et343

al., 2013; Murray et al., 2008) we found that high Stoicism was negatively related to344

hedonic wellbeing. This effect was mostly driven by Taciturnity and Endurance.345

Interestingly, Endurance was one of the facets that showed substantial gender differences.346

A mediation analysis indicated a negative indirect effect between gender and hedonic347

wellbeing via Endurance. Gender differences in expression of physiological ailments might348

help to explain the previously observed differences between male and female participants in349

help seeking and mental health (Judd, Komiti, & Jackson, 2008; Rughani2011; Murray et350

al., 2008). Contrary to our hypothesis we also found negative effects of stoicism on351

eudaimonic wellbeing and increased search for meaning. The effect of stoicism and352

eudaimonic wellbeing was mostly driven by Taciturnity and Serenity. Interestingly, this353

pattern overlapped with our findings on happiness orientations, where in contrast to our354

hypothesis meaning orientation was negatively related to Taciturnity and Serenity. Overall,355

this indicates that Taciturnity and Serenity might not only impact felt meaning, but also356

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 16

orientation to meaning. A potential reason for this could be found in their negative357

relationship with Engagement orientation. Taciturnity was significantly negatively related358

to OTH-Engagement and Serenity was marginally significantly related to359

OTH-Engagement, indicating that participants high on these facets show reduced360

engagement in life. Past research has shown that both, engagement and meaning361

orientations are strongly related to personality traits expressing sociability indicating that362

the ability to connect with others might be crucial to be engaged in life and find meaning363

in life (Lambert et al., 2013; Pollock, Noser, Holden, & Zeigler-Hill, 2016). A preference for364

unemotionality and emotional disconnect from others might reduce social embeddedness365

(Mauss et al., 2011; Wells, Rehman, & Sutherland, 2016), which has been identified as core366

motivational goal (Ko et al., 2019), of individuals leading to lower engagement in life and367

lower meaning orientation (Stavrova & Luhmann, 2016). Lastly, we found the expected368

effect of stoicism on hedonic orientation, but this seemed to be a summary effect of the369

individual stoicism facets, rather than driven by any individual facet. Taken together our370

findings indicate that stoic ideology reduces wellbeing, potentially due to increased371

emotional disconnect from others and disengagement from life.372

Limitations373

Our current study was mostly limited by our sample. Our sample was skewed374

towards female participants and had on average a low age. This limits the generalizability375

of our findings to the overall population. Further, we have no information on participants376

exposure to stoic philosophy and it is possible that a deeper explicit engagement with stoic377

philosophy might be necessary to find our predicted effects. Last, our current sample was378

from a Western context which might have specific expectations about emotional379

expressiveness. It would therefore be important to examine the cross-cultural stability of380

the current results to achieve a better understanding of the effects of stoic ideology in381

cultural contexts. Additionally, while our findings indicate that holding a naive stoic382

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 17

ideology has negative wellbeing effects, this does not imply that more explicit, formal383

endorsement of stoic philosophy would have the same effects. Further, in our study we384

observed a very high correlation of eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing, indicating that our385

current sample did not make a substantial distinction between these two types of wellbeing.386

This leaves the open question how stoicism is related to wellbeing when participants can387

either endorse behaviors providing meaning or behaviors that provide hedonic pleasure.388

Conclusion389

Overall, our study shows that a naive endorsement of stoic ideology might have390

negative wellbeing consequences. This finding holds important implications for clinical391

practice as stoic ideology is thought to be malleable and responsive to interventions392

(Pathak et al., 2017). The finding that stoic ideology is negatively related to both hedonic393

and eudaimonic wellbeing raises an interesting question. How can clinical practices such as394

CBT that are strongly rooted in stoic thinking show substantial effects while endorsing395

stoic ideology is negatively related to eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing? While396

endorsement of stoic ideology might capture individual’s orientation towards stoic beliefs,397

it does not capture individuals skill in behaving in a stoic way extended practice of stoic398

behaviors similar to those in CBT might be necessary to allow for stoic beliefs to exert399

wellbeing benefits. Using CBT based interventions might allow practitioners to build on400

individuals existing naive stoic ideology and transform it into a beneficial factor for401

wellbeing.402

Open Science Statement403

Our study was pre-registered, all code, materials, and data is available on the OSF.404

In addition to the variables reported on we also collected additional descriptive statistics405

about participants mindfulness practice, meditation practice, yoga practice, and406

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 18

religiousness. These variables are available in the public data on the OSF407

(https://osf.io/bkqgs/?view_only=0bdc04bf606b41b9a1ac4ba0c7658990).408

R packages used409

The exact packages used in the current analysis can be found with their citations on410

the OSF.411

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 19

References412

Becker, L. C. (2003). Human Health and Stoic Moral Norms. The Journal of Medicine and413

Philosophy, 28 (2), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1076/jmep.28.2.221.14206414

Becker, L. C. (2017). A new stoicism. Princeton University Press.415

Bei, B., Bryant, C., Gilson, K.-M., Koh, J., Gibson, P., Komiti, A., . . . Judd, F. (2013). A416

prospective study of the impact of floods on the mental and physical health of older417

adults. Aging & Mental Health, 17 (8), 992–1002.418

https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2013.799119419

Cooke, P. J., Melchert, T. P., & Connor, K. (2016). Measuring Well-Being. The Counseling420

Psychologist, 44 (5), 730–757. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000016633507421

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life422

scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49 (1), 71–75.423

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13424

Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D.-w., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R.425

(2010). New Well-being Measures: Short Scales to Assess Flourishing and Positive426

and Negative Feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97 (2), 143–156.427

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y428

Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., Kashdan, T. B., Short, J. L., & Jarden, A. (2016).429

Different types of well-being? A cross-cultural examination of hedonic and430

eudaimonic well-being. Psychological Assessment, 28 (5), 471–482.431

https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000209432

Extremera, N., Ruiz-Aranda, D., Pineda-Galán, C., & Salguero, J. M. (2011). Emotional433

intelligence and its relation with hedonic and eudaimonic well-being: A prospective434

study. Personality and Individual Differences, 51 (1), 11–16.435

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.029436

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 20

Fischer, R., & Karl, J. A. (2019). A primer to (cross-cultural) multi-group invariance437

testing possibilities in R. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1507.438

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01507439

Fowers, B. J., Mollica, C. O., & Procacci, E. N. (2010). Constitutive and instrumental goal440

orientations and their relations with eudaimonic and hedonic well-being. The441

Journal of Positive Psychology, 5 (2), 139–153.442

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439761003630045443

Henderson, L. W., Knight, T., & Richardson, B. (2014). The Hedonic and Eudaimonic444

Validity of the Orientations to Happiness Scale. Social Indicators Research, 115 (3),445

1087–1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0264-4446

Huta, V. (2016). Eudaimonic and Hedonic Orientations: Theoretical Considerations and447

Research Findings. In (pp. 215–231). Springer, Cham.448

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3_15449

Huta, V., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Pursuing Pleasure or Virtue: The Differential and450

Overlapping Well-Being Benefits of Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives. Journal of451

Happiness Studies, 11 (6), 735–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9171-4452

Ierodiakonou, K. (2015). How Feasible Is the Stoic Conception of Eudaimonia? In The453

quest for the good life (pp. 183–196). Oxford University Press.454

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198746980.003.0010455

Inwood, B. (2003). The Cambridge companion to the Stoics (pp. 1–438). Cambridge456

University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL052177005X457

Joshanloo, M., Jovanović, V., & Park, J. (2020). Differential Relationships of Hedonic and458

Eudaimonic Well-Being with Self-Control and Long-Term Orientation. Japanese459

Psychological Research, jpr.12276. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12276460

Judd, F., Komiti, A., & Jackson, H. (2008). How does being female assist help-seeking for461

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 21

mental health problems? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 42 (1),462

24–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048670701732681463

Ko, A., Pick, C. M., Kwon, J. Y., Barlev, M., Krems, J. A., Varnum, M. E. W., . . .464

Kenrick, D. T. (2019). Family Matters: Rethinking the Psychology of Human Social465

Motivation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 174569161987298.466

https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619872986467

Lambert, N. M., Stillman, T. F., Hicks, J. A., Kamble, S., Baumeister, R. F., & Fincham,468

F. D. (2013). To Belong Is to Matter: Sense of Belonging Enhances Meaning in469

Life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39 (11), 1418–1427.470

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213499186471

Long, A. A. (2002). Epictetus. Oxford University Press.472

https://doi.org/10.1093/0199245568.001.0001473

Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary474

reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46 (2), 137–155.475

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006824100041476

Mauss, I. B., Shallcross, A. J., Troy, A. S., John, O. P., Ferrer, E., Wilhelm, F. H., &477

Gross, J. J. (2011). Don’t Hide Your Happiness! Positive Emotion Dissociation,478

Social Connectedness, and Psychological Functioning. Journal of Personality and479

Social Psychology, 100 (4), 738–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022410480

Murray, G., Judd, F., Jackson, H., Fraser, C., Komiti, A., Pattison, P., . . . Robins, G.481

(2008). Big boys don’t cry: An investigation of stoicism and its mental health482

outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 44 (6), 1369–1381.483

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.12.005484

Pathak, E. B., Wieten, S. E., & Wheldon, C. W. (2017). Stoic beliefs and health:485

development and preliminary validation of the Pathak-Wieten Stoicism Ideology486

Scale. BMJ Open, 7 (11), e015137. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015137487

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 22

Perry, K. M., Stacy, S. E., & Pepper, C. M. (2019). Masculine gender-related personality488

traits and acquired capability for suicide. Death Studies, 1–8.489

https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2019.1699206490

Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life491

satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6 (1),492

25–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-004-1278-z493

Pollock, N. C., Noser, A. E., Holden, C. J., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2016). Do Orientations to494

Happiness Mediate the Associations Between Personality Traits and Subjective495

Well-Being? Journal of Happiness Studies, 17 (2), 713–729.496

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9617-9497

Robertson, D. (2016). The Stoic influence on modern psychotherapy. In J. Sellars (Ed.),498

The routledge handbook of the stoic tradition (pp. 394–408). Routledge.499

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315771588-39500

Robertson, D. (2019). The Philosophy of Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT) : Stoic501

Philosophy as Rational and Cognitive Psychotherapy. Routledge.502

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429268700503

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of504

Research on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being. Annual Review of Psychology,505

52 (1), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141506

Scoats, R., & Robinson, S. (2020). From Stoicism to Bromance: Millennial Men’s507

Friendships. In The palgrave handbook of masculinity and sport (pp. 379–392).508

Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19799-5_21509

Sherman, N. (2011). Stoic Warriors: The Ancient Philosophy Behind the Military Mind510

(pp. 1–256). Oxford University Press.511

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195315912.001.0001512

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 23

Stavrova, O., & Luhmann, M. (2016). Social connectedness as a source and consequence of513

meaning in life. Journal of Positive Psychology, 11 (5), 470–479.514

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1117127515

Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire:516

Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling517

Psychology, 53, 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80518

Vittersø, J., & Søholt, Y. (2011). Life satisfaction goes with pleasure and personal growth519

goes with interest: Further arguments for separating hedonic and eudaimonic520

well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6 (4), 326–335.521

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2011.584548522

Watts, S. E., Turnell, A., Kladnitski, N., Newby, J. M., & Andrews, G. (2015).523

Treatment-as-usual (TAU) is anything but usual: A meta-analysis of CBT versus524

TAU for anxiety and depression. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.025525

Wells, R., Rehman, U. S., & Sutherland, S. (2016). Alexithymia and social support in526

romantic relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 371–376.527

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.029528

Wolfsdorf, D. (2009). Pleasure in ancient greek philosophy (pp. 1–299). Cambridge529

University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667510530

Yoon, E., Chang, C. C.-T., Clawson, A., Knoll, M., Aydin, F., Barsigian, L., & Hughes, K.531

(2015). Religiousness, spirituality, and eudaimonic and hedonic well-being.532

Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 28 (2), 132–149.533

https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2014.968528534

Becker, L. C. (2003). Human Health and Stoic Moral Norms. The Journal of Medicine and535

Philosophy, 28 (2), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1076/jmep.28.2.221.14206536

Becker, L. C. (2017). A new stoicism. Princeton University Press.537

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 24

Bei, B., Bryant, C., Gilson, K.-M., Koh, J., Gibson, P., Komiti, A., . . . Judd, F. (2013). A538

prospective study of the impact of floods on the mental and physical health of older539

adults. Aging & Mental Health, 17 (8), 992–1002.540

https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2013.799119541

Cooke, P. J., Melchert, T. P., & Connor, K. (2016). Measuring Well-Being. The Counseling542

Psychologist, 44 (5), 730–757. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000016633507543

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life544

scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49 (1), 71–75.545

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13546

Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D.-w., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R.547

(2010). New Well-being Measures: Short Scales to Assess Flourishing and Positive548

and Negative Feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97 (2), 143–156.549

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y550

Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., Kashdan, T. B., Short, J. L., & Jarden, A. (2016).551

Different types of well-being? A cross-cultural examination of hedonic and552

eudaimonic well-being. Psychological Assessment, 28 (5), 471–482.553

https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000209554

Extremera, N., Ruiz-Aranda, D., Pineda-Galán, C., & Salguero, J. M. (2011). Emotional555

intelligence and its relation with hedonic and eudaimonic well-being: A prospective556

study. Personality and Individual Differences, 51 (1), 11–16.557

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.029558

Fischer, R., & Karl, J. A. (2019). A primer to (cross-cultural) multi-group invariance559

testing possibilities in R. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1507.560

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01507561

Fowers, B. J., Mollica, C. O., & Procacci, E. N. (2010). Constitutive and instrumental goal562

orientations and their relations with eudaimonic and hedonic well-being. The563

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 25

Journal of Positive Psychology, 5 (2), 139–153.564

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439761003630045565

Henderson, L. W., Knight, T., & Richardson, B. (2014). The Hedonic and Eudaimonic566

Validity of the Orientations to Happiness Scale. Social Indicators Research, 115 (3),567

1087–1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0264-4568

Huta, V. (2016). Eudaimonic and Hedonic Orientations: Theoretical Considerations and569

Research Findings. In (pp. 215–231). Springer, Cham.570

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3_15571

Huta, V., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Pursuing Pleasure or Virtue: The Differential and572

Overlapping Well-Being Benefits of Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives. Journal of573

Happiness Studies, 11 (6), 735–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9171-4574

Ierodiakonou, K. (2015). How Feasible Is the Stoic Conception of Eudaimonia? In The575

quest for the good life (pp. 183–196). Oxford University Press.576

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198746980.003.0010577

Inwood, B. (2003). The Cambridge companion to the Stoics (pp. 1–438). Cambridge578

University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL052177005X579

Joshanloo, M., Jovanović, V., & Park, J. (2020). Differential Relationships of Hedonic and580

Eudaimonic Well-Being with Self-Control and Long-Term Orientation. Japanese581

Psychological Research, jpr.12276. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12276582

Judd, F., Komiti, A., & Jackson, H. (2008). How does being female assist help-seeking for583

mental health problems? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 42 (1),584

24–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048670701732681585

Ko, A., Pick, C. M., Kwon, J. Y., Barlev, M., Krems, J. A., Varnum, M. E. W., . . .586

Kenrick, D. T. (2019). Family Matters: Rethinking the Psychology of Human Social587

Motivation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 174569161987298.588

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 26

https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619872986589

Lambert, N. M., Stillman, T. F., Hicks, J. A., Kamble, S., Baumeister, R. F., & Fincham,590

F. D. (2013). To Belong Is to Matter: Sense of Belonging Enhances Meaning in591

Life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39 (11), 1418–1427.592

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213499186593

Long, A. A. (2002). Epictetus. Oxford University Press.594

https://doi.org/10.1093/0199245568.001.0001595

Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary596

reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46 (2), 137–155.597

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006824100041598

Mauss, I. B., Shallcross, A. J., Troy, A. S., John, O. P., Ferrer, E., Wilhelm, F. H., &599

Gross, J. J. (2011). Don’t Hide Your Happiness! Positive Emotion Dissociation,600

Social Connectedness, and Psychological Functioning. Journal of Personality and601

Social Psychology, 100 (4), 738–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022410602

Murray, G., Judd, F., Jackson, H., Fraser, C., Komiti, A., Pattison, P., . . . Robins, G.603

(2008). Big boys don’t cry: An investigation of stoicism and its mental health604

outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 44 (6), 1369–1381.605

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.12.005606

Pathak, E. B., Wieten, S. E., & Wheldon, C. W. (2017). Stoic beliefs and health:607

development and preliminary validation of the Pathak-Wieten Stoicism Ideology608

Scale. BMJ Open, 7 (11), e015137. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015137609

Perry, K. M., Stacy, S. E., & Pepper, C. M. (2019). Masculine gender-related personality610

traits and acquired capability for suicide. Death Studies, 1–8.611

https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2019.1699206612

Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life613

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 27

satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6 (1),614

25–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-004-1278-z615

Pollock, N. C., Noser, A. E., Holden, C. J., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2016). Do Orientations to616

Happiness Mediate the Associations Between Personality Traits and Subjective617

Well-Being? Journal of Happiness Studies, 17 (2), 713–729.618

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9617-9619

Robertson, D. (2016). The Stoic influence on modern psychotherapy. In J. Sellars (Ed.),620

The routledge handbook of the stoic tradition (pp. 394–408). Routledge.621

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315771588-39622

Robertson, D. (2019). The Philosophy of Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT) : Stoic623

Philosophy as Rational and Cognitive Psychotherapy. Routledge.624

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429268700625

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of626

Research on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being. Annual Review of Psychology,627

52 (1), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141628

Scoats, R., & Robinson, S. (2020). From Stoicism to Bromance: Millennial Men’s629

Friendships. In The palgrave handbook of masculinity and sport (pp. 379–392).630

Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19799-5_21631

Sherman, N. (2011). Stoic Warriors: The Ancient Philosophy Behind the Military Mind632

(pp. 1–256). Oxford University Press.633

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195315912.001.0001634

Stavrova, O., & Luhmann, M. (2016). Social connectedness as a source and consequence of635

meaning in life. Journal of Positive Psychology, 11 (5), 470–479.636

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1117127637

Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire:638

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 28

Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling639

Psychology, 53, 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80640

Vittersø, J., & Søholt, Y. (2011). Life satisfaction goes with pleasure and personal growth641

goes with interest: Further arguments for separating hedonic and eudaimonic642

well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6 (4), 326–335.643

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2011.584548644

Watts, S. E., Turnell, A., Kladnitski, N., Newby, J. M., & Andrews, G. (2015).645

Treatment-as-usual (TAU) is anything but usual: A meta-analysis of CBT versus646

TAU for anxiety and depression. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.025647

Wells, R., Rehman, U. S., & Sutherland, S. (2016). Alexithymia and social support in648

romantic relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 371–376.649

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.029650

Wolfsdorf, D. (2009). Pleasure in ancient greek philosophy (pp. 1–299). Cambridge651

University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667510652

Yoon, E., Chang, C. C.-T., Clawson, A., Knoll, M., Aydin, F., Barsigian, L., & Hughes, K.653

(2015). Religiousness, spirituality, and eudaimonic and hedonic well-being.654

Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 28 (2), 132–149.655

https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2014.968528656

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 29

Table 1

Reliability of the measures in the study

measures alpha omega glb h

Stoicism .811[.788, .833] .814[.792, .836] .851 .867

Endurance .793[.764, .821] .793[.764, .821] .780 .793

Taciturnity .749[.715, .783] .752[.718, .785] .765 .766

Serenity .587[.529, .644] .627[.574, .679] .629 .658

Death Acceptance .705[.665, .746] .717[.678, .755] .732 .742

OTH-Meaning .621[.575, .668] .633[.588, .678] .736 .654

OTH-Pleasure .546[.491, .601] .562[.511, .614] .657 .703

OTH-Engagement .619[.573, .666] .627[.583, .672] .737 .774

Meaning-Presence .849[.831, .868] .853[.835, .871] .881 .881

Meaning-Searching .886[.872, .900] .888[.874, .902] .919 .892

Satisfaction with Life .864[.848, .880] .866[.850, .883] .866 .885

Happiness .862[.845, .880] .867[.849, .884] .887 .909

Flourishing .886[.872, .899] .888[.874, .901] .917 .893

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 30

Table2

Intercorrelatio

nof

themeasuresin

thestud

y

measure

MSD

12

34

56

78

910

11

Endu

rance

-0.03

1.05

Taciturnity

-0.03

1.02

.65**

Serenity

-0.61

0.86

.35**

.53**

Death

Acceptance

-0.21

1.02

.21**

.18**

.14**

OTH-M

eaning

4.66

0.78

-.06

-.16**

-.18**

.03

OTH-P

leasure

4.05

0.79

.04

-.01

.00

.05

.58**

OTH-E

ngagem

ent

4.55

0.87

-.13**

-.18**

-.16**

-.02

.63**

.48**

Meaning

-Presence

3.88

1.22

-.19**

-.26**

-.15**

.05

.42**

.34**

.47**

Meaning

-Search

4.62

1.20

.08*

.10*

.05

.01

.28**

.26**

.37**

.08*

Satis

factionwith

Life

4.61

1.31

-.27**

-.32**

-.20**

-.08+

.33**

.27**

.34**

.50**

-.06

Hap

piness

4.14

1.26

-.29**

-.35**

-.23**

-.12**

.33**

.24**

.36**

.48**

-.01

.60**

Flou

rishing

5.38

0.94

-.29**

-.39**

-.32**

-.09*

.54**

.35**

.52**

.60**

.08*

.67**

.65**

657

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 31

Table3

Com

parisonof

model

fitbetweenwe

llbeing

models.

Mod

elchi

dfp

CFI

RMSE

ASR

MR

BIC

CorrelatedFa

cets

Mod

el540.496

203.000

0.000

0.942

0.060[0.054,

0.066]

0.045

40,529.645

CorrelatedEu

daim

onia

andHedon

ia541.040

204.000

0.000

0.943

0.059[0.053,

0.066]

0.045

40,523.235

Higher-orderWellbeing

Mod

el538.388

203.000

0.000

0.943

0.060[0.054,

0.066]

0.045

40,529.645

UnifactorialM

odel

543.743

205.000

0.000

0.942

0.059[0.053,

0.066]

0.046

40,520.578

Note.

Allmod

elswe

refit

with

anMLR

estim

ator

toad

just

formulti-varia

teno

n-no

rmality

inthepresence

of

miss

ingda

ta.

658

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 32

0.55 0.560.590.64 0.640.650.68 0.69

0.70

0.710.72 0.760.78 0.780.780.790.81 0.81 0.81

0.83

0.84

0.85

0.85 0.870.91

0.96

0.96

m_1 m_4 m_5 m_6 m_9 f_1 f_2 f_3 f_4 f_5 f_6 f_7 f_8 sw_1 sw_2 sw_3 sw_4 s_5 sh_1 sh_2 sh_3 sh_4

Mnn Flr Sts Hpp

Edm Hdn

Figure 1 . Two-factor model of wellbeing.

STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 33

−2

−1

0

1

2

Death Acceptance Serenity Endurance Taciturnity

End

orse

men

t

Female

Male

Figure 2 . Gender differences in the facets of stoic ideology.