A Systematic Review of Adolescent Masculinities and Associations with Internalizing Behavior Problems and Social Support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interest in the connection between masculinities and mental health continues to grow. However, no previous systematic review has explored this association for adolescents. We present the systematic review of 29 articles that explore the connection between adherence to stereotypical male gender role norms (e.g., emotional restriction), attributes (e.g., "ambitious"), and identity (most commonly, gender "typicality") and internalizing behavior problems and social support. A total of 24,795 adolescent boys (6th-12th grade) were included in the reviewed studies from 1997-2017. In the quantitative articles (n = 20), associations varied by aspect of masculinity assessed. Specifically, we found that greater endorsement of "masculine" traits (e.g., ambitious, assertive) was generally associated with fewer internalizing behavior problems and greater social support. However, lower gender "typicality" and higher adherence to stereotypical gender role norms were generally associated with more internalizing behavior problems and lower social support. In the qualitative articles (n = 9), the most predominant theme was emotional restriction (i.e., a gender role norm) and consequences for mental health. While research in this area is newer for community psychologists, the connection between masculinities and mental health is directly relevant to the field. Given the focus on individual-level conceptions of masculinity and mental health found in our review, we describe key future directions for masculinities research in community psychology.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".