Menu
Close
.svg)
Men often approach illness with a quiet, almost instinctive stoicism. It’s not always heroic or admirable. More often, it’s a relic of older biological and cultural forces that pull them away from care rather than toward it.
Few writers captured this posture more sharply than D. H. Lawrence in Self-Pity:
I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.
If you’ve spent time interviewing male patients across therapeutic areas, this mindset feels familiar. It appears in prostate cancer, in erectile dysfunction, in hair loss, and in many chronic diseases where men often know something is wrong yet resist acting on it. Across years of qualitative work in biopharma, this pattern has surfaced so consistently that it merits much closer examination.
This isn’t a manifesto. It’s an attempt to characterize some of the psychological dynamics that repeatedly shape men’s treatment behavior, grounded partly in evolutionary biology and partly in the observations that accumulate when you’ve listened to hundreds of men talk about their health.
Male avoidance of medical care is one of the most persistent patterns in health behavior research. It shows up across the spectrum, from large epidemiologic studies to the 1:1 depth interviews that my colleagues and I conduct daily. Men delay care, downplay symptoms, normalize pain, and often only act when prompted by someone close to them.
The principles of evolutionary biology and psychology provide a useful foundation for understanding these behaviors. Across species, males carried responsibility for competition, territory, and status. Traits such as risk tolerance, endurance, and self-reliance were adaptive. Signaling vulnerability could diminish standing, reduce access to resources, or even threaten survival. Over many generations, these pressures shaped a psychology that equates seeking help with surrendering autonomy. My colleague John Capano, PhD is an expert in this.
Although modern life no longer demands these displays of fitness as prominently, the atavistic circuitry remains. Behavioral scientists often refer to the “hazard premium,” a bias where males instinctively accept physical risk. Within that mental framework, preventive care feels optional, even unnecessary.
None of this excuses avoidance, but it helps explain why messaging that appeals to logic alone fails to motivate men. Their hesitation is not purely cultural. It’s neurological... part of the male operating system.
If avoidance is an internal force, the partner is often the external corrective. In research spanning metastatic prostate cancer, PDE-5 inhibitors for ED, and conditions like hair loss, men consistently report that they would not have sought care without a spouse, long-term partner or sometimes an adult child intervening.
Partners influence the treatment journey in several key ways.
Pharma companies have long intuited this dynamic, designing campaigns that quietly address partners as much as patients. When done respectfully, this dual targeting can be powerful. It acknowledges that male health is often a shared project, even when the disease resides in one body. And children, especially adult children, can play a similar role to a partner in these circumstances.
Once a man enters the healthcare system, his priorities often diverge from the assumptions made in clinical and commercial settings. Men routinely express that they want treatments allowing them to remain productive, sexually capable, and physically functional.
These preferences, again, have deep roots. Evolutionary biology suggests that male value within ancestral communities often derived from capability: the ability to provide, protect, and perform. Modern men may ostensibly reject these labels, yet the psychology persists. Function -- not lifespan -- frequently becomes the lens through which treatment decisions are prioritized.
In prostate cancer work, I have interviewed men who hesitated to pursue life-extending treatment because it threatened sexual function or stamina. The poignant words of one respondent that stands out, "if I can't have sex, I don't see the point in living." In erectile dysfunction research, men described PDE-5 inhibitors not merely as therapeutic agents but as tools for restoring identity. In hair loss studies, younger men framed thinning hair as a threat to status and desirability that felt more pressing than long-term medical risks.
For many men, these concerns cut to the core of how they see themselves. Existential.
In older men, another theme emerges. Some that I have interviewed expressed ambivalence about extending life for its own sake. Their motivation shifts from adding years to preserving autonomy and meaning.
I have a friend who speaks openly about expecting to live only into his mid-70s and feeling completely at peace with that. He worries less about dying early than about living beyond the point at which he can hike, travel, or pursue hobbies that define him. For him, the decline is the enemy, not mortality.
In qualitative interviews, this perspective appears frequently. Men who feel they have discharged their responsibilities to family and career often view longevity as less important than dignity. They want to remain themselves, not simply remain alive.
This mindset shapes how they respond to messaging. Appeals that focus exclusively on survival can fall flat if they fail to address a deeper desire for purpose.
Understanding these psychological currents does not require endorsing them. It requires recognizing them, and leaning into them, so that we can design communications, support programs, and treatment experiences that align with how male patients truly think and behave. Even if this thinking and behavior seem to defy logic.
Men usually know they should seek care. The barrier is acting on that knowledge. Communications that create clear triggers for action, validate the choice to seek help, and acknowledge the reluctance men feel tend to be more effective.
Efficacy alone rarely drives adherence. Preserving energy, mobility, sexual function, and daily competence often holds greater weight. Messaging that reflects this priority structure feels more authentic and resonates more deeply.
For many men, a more tolerable therapy is the difference between staying on treatment and quietly discontinuing. Tolerability speaks directly to the desire to maintain identity and capability -- unencumbered by side effects.
Partners are often the first to recognize the need for care and the most persistent advocates for follow-through. Communications that support them, provide language to initiate difficult conversations, and offer tools for involvement strengthen activation.
For older men, highlight how treatment may preserve independence, functionality, and the ability to pursue meaningful activities. Speak to life as it is lived, not just extended. Also, it's useful to help men envision their partner's life alone as an impetus to act - an angle they may not always think about.
Male psychology grows out of a mix of biology, culture, and life stories, and many of you working directly in these treatment categories have an even richer understanding of that complexity. I offer these observations in the spirit of adding to the shared conversation. When we pay attention to both the expressed and the instinctive forces that shape men’s choices, we can build approaches that feel more aligned with how they view their health.
It really starts with listening, staying attuned, and helping men move toward care in ways that feel comfortable and authentic.
