Thought suppression strategies as mediators between traditional masculinity ideology and externalized depressive symptoms in men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The role of externalizing symptoms in men’s experiences of depression, including the link between externalizing symptoms and traditional masculinity ideologies (TMI), has emerged as a key consideration in men’s mental health. Within this context, men’s strategies to manage uncomfortable thoughts and emotions (e.g. restricted emotionality, alexithymia) have been featured. In order to respond to existing gaps in the literature, the purpose of this study was to examine thought suppression as a mediator in the relationship between TMI (self-reliance through mechanical skills, avoidance of femininity, toughness, dominance, restrictive emotionality, importance of sex, negativity towards sexual minorities) and externalizing depressive symptoms (e.g. aggression, alcohol use, risk taking behaviors) as well as explore how each thought suppression strategy differentially mediates the relationship between TMI and externalizing depressive symptoms. Self-report data were used from 785 US men (mean age = 37.78 years-old, SD = 14.05) who completed an online survey. Results indicated that TMI was directly associated with externalizing depressive symptoms, and that thought suppression mediated the relationship between TMI and externalizing depressive symptoms. Additionally, the thought suppression strategies of punishment and worry mediated the relationship between TMI and externalizing depressive symptoms. Given the additional insight into punishment and worry in the role of men’s externalizing depressive symptoms, acceptance-based interventions, such as mindfulness, may provide benefits for men who engage in thought suppression to manage their internal experience.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".