Disentangling the Individual and Group Effects of Masculinity Ideology on PTSD Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology is frequently associated with interference in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); however, there is little empirical basis for this association. Moreover, there is increasing attention on masculinity ideology being contextual in nature, which may have important implications for our understanding of its impact on treatment. Here, we examine how the outcome of a group-based treatment for veterans with PTSD was impacted by traditional masculinity facets held at the individual level, and among other group members. Our sample consisted of (N = 255) Canadian veteran men. Results indicated that the degree of individual self-reliance and dominance attenuated positive treatment outcomes, with respect to total PTSD symptom change and PTSD-related avoidance symptoms. Self-reliance also attenuated symptom change in negative alterations in cognitions and mood and hyperarousal clusters. Other group members’ degree of masculinity did not appear to impact individual participants’ pre- to post-treatment PTSD symptom change. The R2 for significant results ranged from .01-.05. This study provides evidence that, within the context of group-based treatment, an individual’s endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology may impede reduction of PTSD symptomatology, but the effect of other group members’ masculinity endorsement does not.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".