Running head: STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 1

1 Stoicism and the good life

1 1 2 Johannes Alfons Karl & Ronald Fischer

1 3 Victoria University of Wellington

4 Author Note

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

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

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

8 Kelburn Parade. E-mail: [email protected] STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 2

9 Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

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

16 related to wellbeing across individuals. While initial research focusing on hedonic

17 conceptualizations of wellbeing has found substantial negative effects of stoic ideology, no

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

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

20 their stoic ideology, eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing, as well as their orientations to

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

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

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

24 our hypothesis stoic ideology significantly negatively predicted eudaimonic wellbeing and

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

26 endorsement of stoic ideology might be detrimental to individuals’ wellbeing independent

27 of the specific aspect.

28 Keywords: stoicism; wellbeing; orientations to happiness

29 Word count: 3952 STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 3

30 Stoicism and the good life

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

38 to reduce combat stress (Sherman, 2011).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

51 been related to wellbeing. Stoic thought has profoundly influenced Cognitive Behavioral

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

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

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

55 their endorsement of stoic ideologies (for a thorough review of ancient stoicism and modern STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

69 investigation of some aspects of stoic thinking that are important in the philosophical

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

77 Eudaimonic and Hedonic Wellbeing. The two major dimensions of wellbeing

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

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

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

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

82 and purpose in life. The distinction of eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing have been shown STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

89 psychological processes (Huta, 2016).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

101 order of importance: virtues are preferable over indifferents, indifferents over vices

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

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

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

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

106 limited empirical attention in psychology.

107 The link between stoicism and wellbeing has been largely investigated through a

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

109 and positively to depression (Bei et al., 2013; Murray et al., 2008). While this negative STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 6

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

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

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

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

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

115 Based on the subordination of hedonic wellbeing to eudaimonic wellbeing in stoic theory

116 we hypothesized that stoic ideology is negatively related to hedonic wellbeing and

1 117 positively related to eudaimonic wellbeing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

124 Endorsing a specific orientation does not necessarily entail obtaining the corresponding

125 aspect of wellbeing, but indicates behavioral preferences towards certain wellbeing related

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

136 predicted that stoic ideology would show substantial positive relationships with meaning

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

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

139 eudaimonic orientation and negatively to hedonic orientation to happiness.

140 Methods

141 Participants

142 We pre-registered that we would sample 400 undergraduate psychology students

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

150 (SD = 3.12).

151 Material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

159 original scoring instructions. STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 8

160 Orientation to Happiness. We measured participants orientation to happiness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

168 Eudaimonic Wellbeing.

169 Flourishing. The Flourishing scale is a eight-item measure assessing individuals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

179 Hedonic Wellbeing.

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

181 1999) is a four-item measure of global happiness measured on a Likert scale from 1 to 7.

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

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

184 7-(A great deal). STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 9

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

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

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

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

189 am satisfied with my current life”.

190 The Structure of wellbeing. The classification of the scales as hedonic or

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

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

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

2 194 non-normality and found that it showed good fit to the data (χ (204) = 541.04,CFI = 0.94,

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

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

197 wellbeing facets subsumed under eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing which was subsumed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

207 any items. STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 10

208 Results

209 Equivalence of the PWSIS between Genders

210 Because the PWSIS has shown substantial differences between male and female

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

221 0.00), indicating that the model showed scalar equivalence between male and female

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

223 0.058[0.046,0.07], SRMR = 0.05). The model also showed no substantial drop in fit when

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

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

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

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

228 We compared the mean differences between male and female participants in overall

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

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

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

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

2 233 MSE = 0.97, p < .001, ω = 0.053), Gender (F (3, 2, 467) = 47.45, MSE = 0.97, p < .001, STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 11

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

2 235 MSE = 0.97, p = .007, ω = 0.003). To assess the pairwise differences between male and

236 female participants for each of the facets adjusting for the sample size difference between

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

238 ANOVA model. We found that female participants had significantly lower Death

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

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

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

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

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

244 results in Figure 2

245 Hypothesis 1 (Eudaimonic Orientation of Stoicism)

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

247 indicators and 1000 bootstraps in which stoicism predicted meaning and pleasure

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

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

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

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

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

253 0.51). Overall, these findings did not support our hypothesis that stoic ideology would be

254 related to greater orientation towards meaning.

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

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

257 indicators and1000 bootstraps in which stoicism predicted eudaimonic and hedonic

258 well-being. We predicted that stoic ideology would be positively related to a eudaimonic STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 12

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

260 = -0.30[-0.37, -0.23], p < .001). We also predicted that stoic ideology would negatively

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

262 stoicism negatively predicted both eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing, the relationship

263 between stoicism and eudaimonic wellbeing was substantially weaker compared to hedonic

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

265 that while stoic ideology has less negative relationships with eudaimonic wellbeing

266 compared to hedonic wellbeing it might still be detrimental.

267 Exploratory Analyses

268 The relationship between stoicism sub-facets and orientations to

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

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

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

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

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

274 -0.05],p < .001) and Taciturnity (β = -0.14[-0.25, -0.03], p = 0.02), but not by Endurance

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

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

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

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

279 0.13], p = 0.25). Overall, this indicates that the negative relationships between Stoicism

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

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

282 meaning orientation.

283 The relationship between stoicism sub-facets and wellbeing. Our second

284 exploratory analysis repeated the analysis of our second hypothesis (Stoicism predicting STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 13

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

286 individual facets. Eudaimonic wellbeing was significantly negatively predicted by Serenity

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

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

289 0.14], p = 0.11). Hedonic wellbeing was significantly negatively predicted by Taciturnity (β

290 = -0.26[-0.36, -0.16], =p < .001) and Endurance (β = -0.11[-0.21, -0.02], p = 0.02) , but

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

2 292 0.04], p = 0.43).

293 The relationship between stoicism and engagement in life. The orientation

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

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

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

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

2 298 t(625) = −4.31, p < .001, R = .03, 90% CI [0.01, 0.05], F (1, 625) = 18.57, p < .001). We

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

300 stoicism. We found that only Taciturnity significantly predicted lower Engagement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

307 might capture general detachment.

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

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

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

2 311 relationship (b = 0.16, 95% CI [0.03, 0.30], t(617) = 2.42, p = .016, R = .02, 90% CI [0.00,

312 0.04], F (5, 617) = 2.72, p = .019). We subsequently ran a path model in which Meaning in

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

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

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

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

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

318 Discussion

319 Our current research addressed the question how participants’ endorsement of stoic

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

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

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

323 pre-registered hypotheses where we expected greater meaning orientation and eudaimonic

324 wellbeing.

325 Stoicism and Gender

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

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

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

329 differences represent true differences or captured differential responding to the measure. STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 15

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

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

332 between male and female participants, indicating that means can be compared and are not

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

340 Robinson, 2020).

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

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

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

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

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

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

347 A mediation analysis indicated a negative indirect effect between gender and hedonic

348 wellbeing via Endurance. Gender differences in expression of physiological ailments might

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

356 this indicates that Taciturnity and Serenity might not only impact felt meaning, but also STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 16

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

358 relationship with Engagement orientation. Taciturnity was significantly negatively related

359 to OTH-Engagement and Serenity was marginally significantly related to

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

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

362 orientations are strongly related to personality traits expressing sociability indicating that

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

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

365 unemotionality and emotional disconnect from others might reduce social embeddedness

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

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

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

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

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

371 findings indicate that stoic ideology reduces wellbeing, potentially due to increased

372 emotional disconnect from others and disengagement from life.

373 Limitations

374 Our current study was mostly limited by our sample. Our sample was skewed

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

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

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

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

379 from a Western context which might have specific expectations about emotional

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

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

382 cultural contexts. Additionally, while our findings indicate that holding a naive stoic STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 17

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

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

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

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

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

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

389 Conclusion

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

391 negative wellbeing consequences. This finding holds important implications for clinical

392 practice as stoic ideology is thought to be malleable and responsive to interventions

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

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

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

396 stoic ideology is negatively related to eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing? While

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

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

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

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

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

402 wellbeing.

403 Open Science Statement

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

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

406 about participants mindfulness practice, meditation practice, yoga practice, and STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 18

407 religiousness. These variables are available in the public data on the OSF

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

409 R packages used

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

411 the OSF. STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 19

412 References

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

414 Philosophy, 28 (2), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1076/jmep.28.2.221.14206

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

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

417 prospective study of the impact of floods on the mental and physical health of older

418 adults. Aging & Mental Health, 17 (8), 992–1002.

419 https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2013.799119

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

421 Psychologist, 44 (5), 730–757. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000016633507

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

423 scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49 (1), 71–75.

424 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

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

426 (2010). New Well-being Measures: Short Scales to Assess Flourishing and Positive

427 and Negative Feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97 (2), 143–156.

428 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y

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

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

431 eudaimonic well-being. Psychological Assessment, 28 (5), 471–482.

432 https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000209

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

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

435 study. Personality and Individual Differences, 51 (1), 11–16.

436 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.029 STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 20

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

438 testing possibilities in R. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1507.

439 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01507

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

441 orientations and their relations with eudaimonic and hedonic well-being. The

442 Journal of Positive Psychology, 5 (2), 139–153.

443 https://doi.org/10.1080/17439761003630045

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

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

446 1087–1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0264-4

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

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

449 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3_15

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

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

452 Happiness Studies, 11 (6), 735–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9171-4

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

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

455 https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198746980.003.0010

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

457 University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL052177005X

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

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

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

461 Judd, F., Komiti, A., & Jackson, H. (2008). How does being female assist help-seeking for STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 21

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

463 24–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048670701732681

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

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

466 Motivation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 174569161987298.

467 https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619872986

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

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

470 Life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39 (11), 1418–1427.

471 https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213499186

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

473 https://doi.org/10.1093/0199245568.001.0001

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

475 reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46 (2), 137–155.

476 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006824100041

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

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

479 Social Connectedness, and Psychological Functioning. Journal of Personality and

480 Social Psychology, 100 (4), 738–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022410

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

482 (2008). Big boys don’t cry: An investigation of stoicism and its mental health

483 outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 44 (6), 1369–1381.

484 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.12.005

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

486 development and preliminary validation of the Pathak-Wieten Stoicism Ideology

487 Scale. BMJ Open, 7 (11), e015137. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015137 STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 22

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

489 traits and acquired capability for suicide. Death Studies, 1–8.

490 https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2019.1699206

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

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

493 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-004-1278-z

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

495 Happiness Mediate the Associations Between Personality Traits and Subjective

496 Well-Being? Journal of Happiness Studies, 17 (2), 713–729.

497 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9617-9

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

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

500 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315771588-39

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

502 Philosophy as Rational and Cognitive Psychotherapy. Routledge.

503 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429268700

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

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

506 52 (1), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141

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

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

509 Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19799-5_21

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

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

512 https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195315912.001.0001 STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 23

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

514 meaning in life. Journal of Positive Psychology, 11 (5), 470–479.

515 https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1117127

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

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

518 Psychology, 53, 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80

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

520 goes with interest: Further arguments for separating hedonic and eudaimonic

521 well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6 (4), 326–335.

522 https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2011.584548

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

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

525 TAU for anxiety and depression. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.025

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

527 romantic relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 371–376.

528 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.029

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

530 University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667510

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

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

533 Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 28 (2), 132–149.

534 https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2014.968528

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

536 Philosophy, 28 (2), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1076/jmep.28.2.221.14206

537 Becker, L. C. (2017). A new stoicism. Princeton University Press. STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 24

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

539 prospective study of the impact of floods on the mental and physical health of older

540 adults. Aging & Mental Health, 17 (8), 992–1002.

541 https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2013.799119

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

543 Psychologist, 44 (5), 730–757. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000016633507

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

545 scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49 (1), 71–75.

546 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

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

548 (2010). New Well-being Measures: Short Scales to Assess Flourishing and Positive

549 and Negative Feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97 (2), 143–156.

550 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y

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

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

553 eudaimonic well-being. Psychological Assessment, 28 (5), 471–482.

554 https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000209

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

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

557 study. Personality and Individual Differences, 51 (1), 11–16.

558 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.029

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

560 testing possibilities in R. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1507.

561 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01507

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

563 orientations and their relations with eudaimonic and hedonic well-being. The STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 25

564 Journal of Positive Psychology, 5 (2), 139–153.

565 https://doi.org/10.1080/17439761003630045

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

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

568 1087–1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0264-4

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

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

571 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3_15

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

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

574 Happiness Studies, 11 (6), 735–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9171-4

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

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

577 https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198746980.003.0010

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

579 University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL052177005X

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

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

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

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

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

585 24–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048670701732681

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

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

588 Motivation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 174569161987298. STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 26

589 https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619872986

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

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

592 Life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39 (11), 1418–1427.

593 https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213499186

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

595 https://doi.org/10.1093/0199245568.001.0001

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

597 reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46 (2), 137–155.

598 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006824100041

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

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

601 Social Connectedness, and Psychological Functioning. Journal of Personality and

602 Social Psychology, 100 (4), 738–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022410

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

604 (2008). Big boys don’t cry: An investigation of stoicism and its mental health

605 outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 44 (6), 1369–1381.

606 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.12.005

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

608 development and preliminary validation of the Pathak-Wieten Stoicism Ideology

609 Scale. BMJ Open, 7 (11), e015137. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015137

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

611 traits and acquired capability for suicide. Death Studies, 1–8.

612 https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2019.1699206

613 Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 27

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

615 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-004-1278-z

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

617 Happiness Mediate the Associations Between Personality Traits and Subjective

618 Well-Being? Journal of Happiness Studies, 17 (2), 713–729.

619 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9617-9

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

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

622 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315771588-39

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

624 Philosophy as Rational and Cognitive Psychotherapy. Routledge.

625 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429268700

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

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

628 52 (1), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141

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

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

631 Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19799-5_21

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

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

634 https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195315912.001.0001

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

636 meaning in life. Journal of Positive Psychology, 11 (5), 470–479.

637 https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1117127

638 Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 28

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

640 Psychology, 53, 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80

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

642 goes with interest: Further arguments for separating hedonic and eudaimonic

643 well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6 (4), 326–335.

644 https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2011.584548

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

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

647 TAU for anxiety and depression. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.025

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

649 romantic relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 371–376.

650 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.029

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

652 University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667510

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

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

655 Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 28 (2), 132–149.

656 https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2014.968528 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 measureEnduranceTaciturnitySerenity M -0.03Death Acceptance SD 1.05 -0.03OTH-Meaning 1.02 -0.21 1 .65** 1.02OTH-Pleasure -0.61 .21** 0.86 2 4.66OTH-Engagement .18** .35** 0.78 .14** .53** Meaning-Presence 4.05 -.06 4.55 3 0.79 0.87Meaning-Search -.16** .04 3.88 -.13** -.18** -.18** 1.22Satisfaction 4 .03 with -.01 Life -.16** -.19** 4.62 4.61 -.02 -.26**Happiness .00 1.20 -.15** 5 1.31 .63** .08* .05 -.27**Flourishing .48** .05 -.32** .10* 6 -.20** .42** -.08+ .34** .58** .05 4.14 .47** .33** 7 1.26 .27** 5.38 .01 -.29** .34** 0.94 -.35** 8 .50** -.29** .28** -.23** -.06 -.39** .26** -.12** 9 -.32** .37** .33** -.09* .08* .24** 10 .54** .36** .35** .48** .52** -.01 11 .60** .60** .08* .67** .65** Table 2 Intercorrelation of the measures in the study 657 STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 31 All models were fit with an MLR estimator to adjust for multi-variate non-normality in the presence of ModelCorrelated Facets ModelCorrelated Eudaimonia and Hedonia 541.040Higher-order Wellbeing Model 204.000 0.000Unifactorial Model 540.496 0.943 203.000 0.059[0.053, 0.066] 538.388 0.000 0.045 203.000 0.942 0.000 0.060[0.054, 40,523.235 0.066] 0.943 0.045 0.060[0.054, chi 0.066] 0.045 40,529.645 543.743 40,529.645 df 205.000 0.000 0.942 p 0.059[0.053, 0.066] 0.046 CFI 40,520.578 RMSEA SRMR BIC Table 3 Comparison of model fit between wellbeing models. Note. missing data. 658 STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 32

0.96

Edm Hdn

0.70 0.96 0.85 0.83

Mnn Flr Sts Hpp

0.720.840.780.810.55 0.760.650.680.590.640.790.780.71 0.810.690.850.780.64 0.910.870.810.56

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

Figure 1 . Two-factor model of wellbeing. STOICISM AND THE GOOD LIFE 33

2

1

Female 0 Male Endorsement

−1

−2

Death Acceptance Serenity Endurance Taciturnity

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