![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/sad-depressed-man-750x375.jpg)
The relationship between traditional masculine ideals and men’s mental health is highly complex, according to new research. While some societal expectations about how men should behave are neutral or even protective, a recent survey reveals that specific norms—namely emotional suppression and extreme self-reliance—are uniquely linked to higher rates of anxiety and depression. The study helps explain the psychological mechanisms behind this, showing that these specific ideals are connected to difficulties in processing and managing emotions. The findings were published in the journal Sex Roles.
Researchers have observed that men are less likely to seek professional psychological help and more likely to drop out of therapy than women. Men also face high rates of internalizing symptoms. Internalizing symptoms refer to mental health conditions where individuals direct psychological distress inward, rather than acting it out aggressively, with common examples including depression and anxiety disorders.
Lead author Vincent O. Mancini, a researcher affiliated with The Kids Research Institute Australia, the University of Western Australia, and Curtin University, along with a team of international psychologists, set out to map the psychological pathways connecting cultural expectations to these internalizing symptoms.
Importantly, the researchers approached masculinity not as a single, homogenous construct, but as a multidimensional set of norms. In many industrialized Western countries, these traditional ideals range from a drive for social status and risk-taking, to stoicism and a reluctance to show vulnerability. The study aimed to identify exactly which of these specific expectations are harmful, which are neutral, and which might even be protective.
To understand the connection between these cultural expectations and mental health, the researchers looked at two specific psychological concepts: alexithymia and emotion regulation.
Alexithymia describes a personality trait characterized by a severe difficulty in identifying and describing one’s own emotions. People with high levels of alexithymia tend to focus their attention outward rather than analyzing their internal feelings. Emotion regulation, on the other hand, is the ability to monitor, evaluate, and modify emotional reactions to achieve a desired state or goal.
The researchers hypothesized that certain cultural expectations teach boys to suppress vulnerability from a very young age. When children are repeatedly encouraged to hide sadness or fear to appear strong, they lose opportunities to practice identifying and processing those feelings. Over time, this lack of practice can develop into alexithymia in adulthood.
To test this framework, the researchers recruited 740 men from the United States and the United Kingdom to complete an extensive online survey. The participants ranged in age from 22 to 80 years old, with diverse educational and employment backgrounds.
The survey included several questionnaires designed to measure different aspects of the participants’ psychological profiles. One questionnaire assessed the degree to which each participant conformed to ten distinct traditional masculine norms. These dimensions included traits like risk-taking, the desire to win, the pursuit of status, self-reliance, prioritizing work above all else, and maintaining strict emotional control.
Additional questionnaires measured the participants’ levels of alexithymia and their ability to regulate their emotions. Finally, the survey evaluated the presence and severity of internalizing symptoms, specifically screening for signs of depression, anxiety, and stress.
The statistical analysis revealed that the relationship between masculine norms and mental health varies heavily depending on the specific type of norm. Four specific masculine ideals were strongly and positively associated with higher levels of alexithymia: the prioritization of work, the drive to remain entirely self-reliant, the desire to win, and the emphasis on emotional control.
Men who reported higher adherence to these norms were more likely to struggle with recognizing and labeling their own feelings. The researchers suggested that burying oneself in work or refusing to ask for help might reinforce a habit of ignoring internal emotional states.
However, other traditional masculine norms did not show this harmful association, and some even appeared beneficial. For example, men who strongly endorsed the “pursuit of status” actually exhibited lower levels of alexithymia and reduced internalizing symptoms. Norms related to risk-taking and heterosexual self-presentation showed no negative association with emotional processing.
For those who did experience high levels of alexithymia, the study found a strong cascading effect. Because these men struggled to accurately appraise what they were feeling, they were less equipped to manage those feelings effectively. This inability to regulate emotional responses was, in turn, strongly associated with elevated anxiety and depression.
By connecting these variables, the researchers mapped a sequential psychological pathway: The pressure to conform to ideals of extreme self-reliance and emotional suppression is linked to an inability to identify personal emotions. This emotional blindness limits the ability to manage psychological distress, which ultimately corresponds to a higher likelihood of experiencing internalizing symptoms.
The data also revealed other associations that operated independently of alexithymia. For instance, the researchers suggested that the “playboy” norm—seeking multiple short-term sexual partners—might be linked to emotion regulation difficulties because it serves as an impulsive, reward-seeking strategy to cope with distress, rather than stemming from an inability to identify emotions.
The authors also noted that emotional control has a highly complicated, dual relationship with mental health. Attempting to restrict or conceal emotions can sometimes provide a successful short-term reduction in distress. However, this immediate protective benefit is ultimately canceled out if it leads to alexithymia over time, which impairs the deeper emotional regulation required for lasting mental health.
Because masculinity is multifaceted, the authors warn against treating it as a single, harmful category, noting that this oversimplification risks perpetuating unhelpful stereotypes about men.
Instead, these findings offer targeted guidance for mental health professionals and educators. The researchers noted that failing to address fundamental difficulties in identifying emotions early in therapy could reduce the effectiveness of traditional psychological treatments. Interventions that first help men build an emotional vocabulary—without pathologizing masculinity as a whole—might prove highly beneficial. Additionally, the authors suggest that school programs focusing on emotion labeling could help boys develop healthier emotional functioning long before they reach adulthood.
While the statistical models map out a sequential pathway, the study relies on cross-sectional survey data. A cross-sectional design captures information at a single point in time, meaning the researchers cannot definitively prove the direction of causality. It is possible that individuals already experiencing high levels of anxiety and depression might report their adherence to masculine norms differently than they would otherwise.
The study also relies entirely on self-reported questionnaires. Future studies could incorporate clinical evaluations or reports from family members to provide a more comprehensive picture. Additionally, research across a wider variety of cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds is needed to see if these psychological patterns hold true outside of Western, industrialized nations like the U.S. and the U.K.
The study, “Internalizing Symptoms in Men: The Role of Masculine Norms, Alexithymia, and Emotion Regulation,” was authored by Vincent O. Mancini, Julia Ditzer, Jack D. Brett, James J. Gross, and David A. Preece.