Reflective functioning and men's mental health: Associations with resilience and personal growth initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mentalizing, or reflective functioning, refers to the capacity to reflect on one's own and others' mental states in terms of desires, intentions, and feelings. Reflective functioning in men's mental health is poorly understood, particularly in reference to men's resilience and motivation for personal growth. Using a cross-sectional design, the present study investigated impaired reflective functioning in relation to resilience and personal growth initiative among men with mental health concerns. An online sample of 1065 men self-reporting mental health concerns completed measures of reflective functioning, psychological distress, resilience, and personal growth initiative. Logistic regression examined reflective functioning in relation to likely serious mental illness, including interaction with age. Subsequent regression analyses controlled for distress severity in examining associations with resilience and personal growth initiative, and in examining the potential mediating role of reflective functioning. Impaired reflective functioning was significantly associated with serious psychological distress irrespective of age and, after controlling for distress severity, with resilience and personal growth initiative. Moreover, impaired reflective functioning was a significant mediator of the relationship between resilience and personal growth initiative. Findings provide preliminary support for reflective functioning as salient to men's resilience and agency for personal change, indicating a potentially important target in men's mental health work.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".