Two studies evaluating the Stoicism programme at a foreign national prison

Purpose Understanding of wellbeing has improved in recent years, and the literature has established some links between wellbeing and aggression, which appears to be theoretically supported. “Hedonia” (maximising positive emotions and minimising negative emotions) and “eudaimonia” (living well and with meaning), two core components of wellbeing, are targeted by the Stoicism programme, which is currently being run in a prison for male foreign national offenders. The purpose of these studies was therefore to measure the impact of the programme on self-reported participant wellbeing and aggression. Design/methodology/approach Two studies have been completed with foreign national offenders who participated in the Stoicism programme. The studies aimed to evaluate the impact of this programme using pre- and post-programme self-report measures of wellbeing and aggression. Supplementary manifest content analysis was also used with sub-samples of participants. Findings Both studies found significant improvements in participant wellbeing. Study 1 found significant improvement on self-reported hostility (a subscale of the aggression measure), but not in the other subscales or in aggression overall. Study 2 found improvements across all scales. The findings suggest that the Stoicism programme is achieving changes in wellbeing, could be contributing to aggression reduction and provides support for the relationship between wellbeing and aggression. Practical implications It is possible the findings suggest the Stoicism programme may provide a further approach to improving safety in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Services (HMPPS), that the gymnasium environment may in itself be conducive to prisoner wellbeing and engagement, and that philosophical approaches may have meaningful benefits in the prison setting. Originality/value There are limitations to these studies, most notably in the sample sizes, lack of control group and the research design focused solely on participant self-report. However, the programme has not been previously evaluated, so these initial findings are important in understanding the possible impact of the programme. Future research would therefore benefit from evaluating the programme itself (including the environment in which it is run), examining the specific sub-types of wellbeing separately and examining participant aggression in further depth and with a larger sample.