The role of masculine personality characteristics and beliefs about sexuality in anxiety, guilt, and shame of men treated for prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While studies have identified that prostate cancer treatment side effects impact men's sexual function and lead to mental health distress, research examining the beliefs that men hold about sexuality and their association with mental health outcomes appears to be lacking. In this study, I investigated whether the extent to which men self-identify with stereotypical masculine characteristics predicts higher levels of anxiety, guilt, and shame reported by men who have been treated for prostate cancer. In addition, I sought to explore the role of their beliefs about sexuality in these relationships. Participants were recruited from a major Canadian city and from social media in both Canada and the United States. They were comprised of 229 prostate cancer survivors (survivors) and 97 approximately age-matched men (controls) who answered an online survey. My analysis showed that men who had greater stereotypical beliefs about sexuality reported significantly higher levels of anxiety. This finding was observed among men in both the survivor and control groups. Furthermore, survivors who held greater stereotypical beliefs about sexuality reported higher levels of guilt and shame. In addition, stereotypical beliefs about sexuality moderated the relationship between traditionally stereotypical masculine personality characteristics and reported guilt among survivors. I concluded that the beliefs that men hold about sexuality significantly predict anxiety, guilt, and shame and moderate the relationship between levels of traditionally stereotypical masculine personality characteristics and guilt. As a result, assessing men's beliefs about sexuality as well as their personality characteristics may provide a clinical tool that can be used to screen for prostate cancer survivors who are at a high risk of experiencing anxiety, guilt, and shame. In addition, addressing men’s views about sexuality that are not grounded in reality represents an opportunity to reduce these emotions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".