Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40370402›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2025

Stoicism, mindfulness, and the brain: the empirical foundations of second-order desires.

Marc Wittmann, Carlos Montemayor, Mauro Dorato

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Marc WittmannInstitute for Frontier Areas of Psychology and Mental Health, Freiburg, Germany.
Carlos MontemayorDepartment of Philosophy, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Mauro DoratoDepartment of Philosophy, Communication and Performing Arts, Roma Tre University, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Building on the Stoic notion of self-regulation, we explore philosophical conceptualizations in relation to empirical evidence from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. We challenge the mainstream account that dismisses the possibility of free will based on contemporary scientific findings. Instead, we argue that these findings actually support and refine the Stoic view of free will, particularly in terms of diachronic self-regulation through second-order willed actions over time. Contrary to classical interpretations of Libet-type experiments-which are often cited to refute free will-we contend that such evidence undermines the notion that we are passive recipients of spontaneous desires. Rather, we possess the capacity to regulate our actions proactively by cultivating and exercising deliberate, voluntary intentions. Freedom, in this sense, arises from a meta-cognitive ability or hierarchical, second-order will that can causally influence or override first-order desires or impulsive habits. In essence, our choices are not entirely predetermined by our upbringing or external circumstances; they emerge from our capacity to reflect upon and respond to those influences. Through this process, the self becomes a self-determined free agent.

Indexed as

diachronic agencyfree willLibet clock procedureself-regulationstoicismvoluntary action

Identifiers

PMID40370402
PMCPMC12075314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.