Does Stoicism Work? What the Studies Show (and What They Don't)

Does Stoicism Work? What the Studies Show (and What They Don't)

Introduction

Social media is full of promises: Stoicism will make you more resilient, more productive, happier, immune to anxiety. Behind those promises there is usually an implicit claim: that science backs it up. Does it?

The honest answer is more nuanced than internet enthusiasm suggests. There is solid indirect evidence, there are a few encouraging but small direct studies, and there is an uncomfortable finding that many popularizers leave out: a misunderstood version of Stoicism is associated with lower well-being.

That a philosophy is useful does not make it a proven treatment. And that it is unproven does not mean it is useless.

This article reviews what is known, what is not, and how to read headlines about Stoicism and mental health with a critical eye.

Why It Is Hard to Study a Philosophy

Testing whether a medication works is relatively simple: you compare a group taking it with another receiving a placebo, without anyone knowing who gets what. With a philosophy of life, almost all of that becomes complicated:

• What exactly is being tested? Stoicism is not a single technique, but a set of ideas, exercises, and attitudes.
• No placebo is possible. Anyone who practices knows they are practicing, and their expectations play a role.
• Participants self-select. People who sign up for a course on Stoicism are already interested and motivated.
• The desired effects are broad. Well-being, resilience, or character are difficult to measure with precision.

That is why evidence on Stoicism comes from three different sources, each with very different weight.

First Source: Indirect Evidence

Cognitive behavioral therapy, which took its central principle from Stoicism (that judgments mediate between events and emotions), has broad empirical support. Reviews of dozens of meta-analyses show it to be effective for anxiety, depression, and many other problems.

This is evidence that several techniques with Stoic roots work when applied in a structured way. It is not evidence that reading Marcus Aurelius on your own produces the same effects, nor that the entire Stoic philosophy is true.

Something similar happens with specific techniques that have Stoic equivalents: graded exposure, cognitive distancing, gratitude writing, or "if X happens, I will do Y" plans. All of them have their own studies, even though they were not designed to test Stoicism.

Second Source: Stoic Week

Since 2012, the Modern Stoicism project, born at the University of Exeter with the participation of philosophers and psychotherapists, has organized Stoic Week every year: a week of guided exercises open to anyone, with well-being questionnaires before and after.

The project's reports, prepared mainly by psychotherapist Tim LeBon, report year after year average improvements of around 12% to 16% in life satisfaction and reductions of around 14% to 21% in negative emotions, depending on the edition.

Those are striking numbers, but they should be read carefully:

• There is no control group. Nobody knows how much people would have improved by doing nothing, or by doing any other activity for a week.
• Participants self-select. They are people already interested in Stoicism.
• Many drop out. Only a fraction of those who start complete the final questionnaire, and those who finish are likely the ones who had a good experience.
• Measures are self-reported. People answer about themselves, with their expectations included.

The authors of the reports themselves acknowledge these limitations and have called for more controlled studies. The results are encouraging as a signal, but not as proof.

Third Source: Direct Studies

There are few studies published in peer-reviewed journals that test Stoic interventions, and most are small. Two examples:

• Medical students (2022). A University of Bath study published in BMC Medical Education tested a twelve-day online Stoicism-based program with 24 third-year students. After the program, their resilience and empathy scores increased. However, it was a pilot study with a very small sample and no control group.
• High worriers (2021). A study by MacLellan and Derakshan published in Cognitive Therapy and Research compared Stoic training with working memory training in people who worry excessively. It is one of the few that includes a comparison between interventions.

There are also some more recent trials in specific populations, such as hemodialysis patients. Taken together, the direct evidence is promising but scarce, and does not yet allow us to state with certainty how much Stoicism helps or whom.

The Uncomfortable Finding

In 2022, an international team led by Johannes Karl published a study in the Journal of Happiness Studies with samples from New Zealand, Norway, and the United States. It measured what it called "Stoic ideology": the popular, lowercase version of stoicism—not showing emotions and wanting to feel less.

The result was clear: that ideology was associated with lower well-being, both in life satisfaction and in meaning and flourishing. The effects were especially pronounced in two traits: the desire not to express emotions and the desire to feel them less.

The authors emphasize that this ideology is a misinterpretation of Stoic philosophy, which never proposed repressing emotions but rather examining the judgments that produce them. Still, the finding is a useful warning: if someone understands Stoicism as "toughing everything out and feeling nothing," it is likely to do them more harm than good.

How to Read the Headlines

Faced with any claim along the lines of "science proves that Stoicism…", it helps to ask these questions:

1. What exactly was studied? Stoicism, a specific technique, or cognitive therapy? 2. Was there a control group? 3. How many people participated? 4. Was it published in a peer-reviewed journal, or is it an internal report? 5. How large was the effect, and how was it measured?

Common Mistakes

• Presenting Stoic Week as scientific proof. It is an interesting signal, not a controlled trial.
• Using the efficacy of CBT to sell the whole of Stoicism. They are related, but distinct.
• Concluding that because there is little evidence, it doesn't work. Absence of proof is not proof that it fails.
• Ignoring the risk of the misunderstood version. Repressing emotions is not Stoicism, and it carries costs.

Conclusion

Science has not yet said the last word on Stoicism. What it does show is that its core techniques, well applied, look very much like proven therapeutic tools, and that its caricature—feeling nothing—is harmful. If you want to test it in your own life, run a small experiment: before practicing for two weeks with the evening review and the question "is this up to me?", rate your life satisfaction and worry level from 0 to 10. Repeat the measurement at the end. It won't be a controlled study, but it is an honest way to start.

References

• LeBon, T. Annual Stoic Week Reports. Modern Stoicism. modernstoicism.com
• Brown, M. E. L., MacLellan, A., Laughey, W., Omer, U., Himmi, G., LeBon, T., & Finn, G. M. (2022). Can stoic training develop medical student empathy and resilience? A mixed-methods study. BMC Medical Education, 22, 340.
• MacLellan, A., & Derakshan, N. (2021). The effects of Stoic training and adaptive working memory training on emotional vulnerability in high worriers. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 45, 730-744.
• Karl, J. A., Verhaeghen, P., Aikman, S. N., Solem, S., Lassen, E. R., & Fischer, R. (2022). Misunderstood Stoicism: The negative association between Stoic ideology and well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 23, 3531-3547.
• Hofmann, S. G., Asnaani, A., Vonk, I. J. J., Sawyer, A. T., & Fang, A. (2012). The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 36(5), 427-440.