Men’s Work-Related Stress and Mental Health: Illustrating the Workings of Masculine Role Norms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although a strong relationship between employment and men's mental health has been identified, theoretical linkages between masculinity, employment, and mental health are not well developed and mental health supports that account for gender and employment are correspondingly inadequate. The purpose of this study is to contribute to theoretical understandings of men's employment-related mental health experience and raise possibilities for gender-responsive employer supports for men's mental health. Specifically, this study is a secondary analysis of narrative accounts from 18 men employed in male-dominated occupations about their employment-related mental health. Results of this study present evidence of processes by which theoretical concepts of masculine role norms influence work-related stress and mental health including: (a) injunctive norms, which operate through an internal sense of the cultural "shoulds" and "should nots"; (b) descriptive norms, which are communicated through the behaviors that a man sees other men enacting in his immediate environment; and (c) cohesive norms, which exert influence through observations of how men who are leaders, behave. Men's insights into the complexity of employment-related stress and mental health according to masculine role norms related to work demands and leadership modeling and messaging are discussed. This study concludes with potential ways forward for employer support for men's mental health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".