Relationships Fostering Healthy Masculinities Scale

Abstract

The Relationships Fostering Healthy Masculinities (RFHM) Scale (Di Bianca & Mahalik, 2025) is a psychometric instrument engineered to evaluate interpersonal experiences and relational dynamics that cultivate, affirm, and sustain healthy expressions of masculinity among adult men. Moving beyond traditional deficit-oriented frameworks that focus exclusively on the harmful sequelae of traditional masculine ideology, the RFHM scale assesses the presence of growth-fostering relational contexts. Grounded theoretically in Relational-Cultural Theory (RCT) and contemporary feminist frameworks of masculine socialization, the instrument measures the degree to which an individual’s primary social network disrupts restrictive gender norms while reinforcing relational and emotional competence.

The scale consists of 24 items organized into six distinct first-order dimensions: (1) Rejecting Shame, (2) Fostering Vulnerability, (3) Rejecting Hyper-Independence, (4) Fostering Connection, (5) Rejecting Violence, and (6) Fostering Compassion. All six dimensions load onto an overarching second-order latent construct representing relationships that foster healthy masculinities. Respondents rate items on a 6-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (absolutely not true) to 6 (absolutely true). Psychometric evaluation across diverse cohorts of adult men in the United States demonstrated exceptional internal consistency, with both Cronbach’s alpha (α) and McDonald’s omega (ω) coefficients ranging from .81 to .84 across all subscales. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) affirmed an excellent structural fit (χ² = 390.59, df = 232; RMSEA = .048; CFI = .96; TLI = .95; SRMR = .044), and multigroup CFA established configural, metric, and scalar measurement invariance across racially diverse groups (White men and men of color). Criterion validity is underscored by significant negative associations with restrictive masculine norms (e.g., emotional control, self-reliance, violence) and significant positive associations with subjective well-being, relational satisfaction, and social justice attitudes.

Keywords

Relationships Fostering Healthy Masculinities, RFHM Scale, Relational-Cultural Theory, masculinity, gender role socialization, relational health, masculine norms, psychometrics, scale validation, positive masculinity, vulnerability, social connectedness

Authors

The Relationships Fostering Healthy Masculinities Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by:

• Michael Di Bianca, Ph.D. — Department of Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology, Lynch School of Education and Human Development, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts; currently at Massachusetts Institute of Technology Health (MIT Health), Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States. Email: [email protected].
• James R. Mahalik, Ph.D. — Department of Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology, Lynch School of Education and Human Development, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, United States. ORCID: 0000-0001-9463-2698. Email: [email protected].

Purpose

For decades, empirical psychology has scrutinized the psychological and interpersonal costs of adhering to traditional, restrictive masculine norms. Traditional masculine socialization frequently emphasizes emotional stoicism, self-reliance, physical aggression, dominance, and the devaluation of vulnerability. Seminal research using instruments such as the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI) has robustly documented that strict adherence to these patriarchal mandates is associated with psychological distress, depression, substance misuse, relational discord, intimate partner violence, and reduced help-seeking behaviors. However, this predominant focus on deficit-based conceptualizations has left a critical empirical gap: the operationalization and measurement of interpersonal environments that actively foster adaptive, prosocial, and liberating expressions of manhood—collectively known as healthy masculinities.

The primary purpose of the Relationships Fostering Healthy Masculinities (RFHM) Scale is to quantify the presence of interpersonal relationships that actively interrupt harmful masculine socialization and cultivate emotional authenticity, relational interdependence, and prosocial engagement. Rather than evaluating masculinity solely as an internalized individual trait or an ideological schema, the RFHM conceptualizes the evolution of healthy masculinity as an inherently relational process. Men do not develop emotional openness or reject hyper-independence in a vacuum; rather, they do so within social matrices where trusted peers, partners, family members, or mentors explicitly validate emotional authenticity and challenge rigid scripts.

In research settings, the RFHM Scale provides developmental, social, and counseling psychologists with a sophisticated, empirically validated tool to examine the relational antecedents and correlates of men’s psychological well-being. It enables scholars to assess how relational contexts buffer men against toxic gender socialization and promote adaptive development across the lifespan. In clinical and community applications, the scale functions as an assessment and psychoeducational inventory for group therapy, men’s mentoring initiatives, campus sexual assault prevention workshops, and interpersonal psychotherapy. By identifying which relational dimensions are absent or present within a client’s life (e.g., presence of vulnerability vs. ongoing relational shame), clinicians can help male clients build, evaluate, and sustain growth-fostering connections that enrich their emotional lives and interpersonal relational depth.

Psychological Construct

The central construct measured by the RFHM Scale is the degree to which an individual experiences interpersonal relationships that deliberately support, model, and reinforce healthy masculine values while actively deconstructing restrictive gender scripts. Rather than treating healthy masculinity as a monolithic, static variable, the construct is conceptualized as a multidimensional phenomenon comprising six interconnected relational processes:

1. Rejecting Shame

Traditional masculine socialization utilizes shame as a primary policing mechanism, censuring boys and men whenever they express distress, fear, or tenderness. The Rejecting Shame dimension assesses the degree to which important figures in a man’s life refuse to equate emotional expression or engagement in personal self-care with weakness. Relationships characterized by the rejection of shame establish a psychologically secure space where men are not ridiculed, diminished, or judged as defective when experiencing normative human frailty or emotional dysregulation.

2. Fostering Vulnerability

Complementing the absence of shame, Fostering Vulnerability measures the proactive, affirmative encouragement of emotional openness. This factor evaluates whether relational partners encourage a man to reveal his authentic self, communicate emotional challenges, and express authentic sorrow or grief (such as crying) without fear of social penalty. Here, vulnerability is reframed not as an admission of defeat or a loss of status, but as an essential conduit for mutual psychological growth and profound interpersonal intimacy.

3. Rejecting Hyper-Independence

Hyper-independence—often valorized in Western patriarchal societies as rugged individualism or extreme self-reliance—isolates men by demanding that they resolve emotional and structural problems without assistance. The Rejecting Hyper-Independence dimension captures relationships that actively dismantle the myth of solitary endurance. It assesses the extent to which relational partners disrupt expectations that “real men” must never need help or that yearning for emotional closeness signifies pathological dependency.

4. Fostering Connection

Beyond merely rejecting isolation, the Fostering Connection dimension measures the explicit encouragement of mutual interdependence, collaborative problem-solving, and emotional intimacy. This subscale captures experiences where important people model healthy support-seeking, encourage the cultivation of platonic and romantic closeness, and openly exchange interpersonal affection. In these relationships, seeking emotional sustenance is treated as an expression of social intelligence and maturity rather than inadequacy.

5. Rejecting Violence

Dominance, coercive control, and the willingness to utilize physical or emotional aggression are classic pillars of hegemonic masculinity. The Rejecting Violence dimension measures an interpersonal ecology that explicitly rejects violence, physical intimidation, and interpersonal dominance as markers of masculine validation. Relational partners scoring high in this domain refuse to respect displays of aggression and challenge the notion that a man’s social standing depends on exerting coercive power over others.

6. Fostering Compassion

The Fostering Compassion dimension measures relational modeling that promotes universal human dignity, empathy, prosocial behavior, and gender egalitarianism. This factor encompasses relational socialization wherein mentors, peers, or family members actively exemplify and teach how to be a “good man” by treating all people with respect, cultivating social empathy, and directly upholding the dignity, safety, and autonomy of women and girls.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Relationships Fostering Healthy Masculinities Scale bridges two major paradigm shifts in contemporary psychology: Relational-Cultural Theory (RCT) and Feminist Socialization Perspectives on Masculinities.

Relational-Cultural Theory (RCT)

Pioneered by Jean Baker Miller, Judith V. Jordan, and colleagues at the Stone Center (Wellesley Centers for Women), RCT posits that human growth occurs primarily toward connection rather than toward separation and individuation. Traditional Western psychological models, deeply steeped in patriarchal and individualistic ethos, have historically operationalized human maturation as a progression from dependency to absolute autonomy. In stark contrast, RCT asserts that psychological distress is rooted in chronic disconnection, isolation, and relational violations. Health, resilience, and personal expansion emerge from participation in growth-fostering relationships.

According to Miller and Jordan, growth-fostering relationships generate what RCT terms the “Five Good Things”:

1. Zest or energy that arises from genuine connection;
2. An increased sense of worth;
3. Clearer clarity or self-knowledge and knowledge of the other;
4. An increased ability to take action within and outside the relationship; and
5. A desire for more connection.

Di Bianca and Mahalik (2022, 2025) extended RCT specifically to the study of men’s lives. Historically, boys and men have been systematically subjected to relational disconnections—what Niobe Way (2011) describes as the relational tragedy of boys growing into adulthood, where intimate childhood friendships are abandoned due to cultural anxieties surrounding homosexuality, weakness, and femininity. The RFHM Scale evaluates precisely those transformative relational bonds that reverse these disconnections, providing the mutual empathy, relational empowerment, and safety required to transcend masculine estrangement.

Feminist Perspectives on Masculine Socialization

The scale integrates critical feminist theories of gender socialization (e.g., Connell, 2005; Mahalik et al., 2003). These perspectives conceptualize traditional masculinity as a socially constructed hierarchy maintained through shame, threat of ostracization, and enforcement of rigid behavioral prescriptions. Culturally entrenched masculine norms require men to display emotional stoicism, disdain feminine-typed behaviors (such as nurturing and vulnerability), maintain hyper-independence, and demonstrate willingness to use violence. When men deviate from these scripts, they frequently encounter relational penalties.

The RFHM incorporates a bifocal lens: fostering healthy masculinity requires both a subtractive process (rejecting traditional mandates of shame, hyper-independence, and violence) and an additive process (fostering emotional vulnerability, genuine connection, and prosocial compassion). This theoretical framework demonstrates that healthy masculinity is not simply an absence of toxicity, but an active, values-based way of relating to self and others that is modeled, mirrored, and sustained in community.

Validity

The construct, criterion, and factorial validity of the RFHM Scale were systematically evaluated across two empirical studies involving community and collegiate samples of adult men in the United States (Di Bianca & Mahalik, 2025).

Criterion-Related and Convergent Validity

To substantiate criterion validity, the authors evaluated correlations between RFHM scores and established psychological constructs across several thematic clusters:

• Masculine Norm Adherence: As hypothesized, scores on the RFHM exhibited statistically significant, moderate-to-strong negative correlations with subscales of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI). Specifically, higher RFHM total and subscale scores were negatively correlated with CMNI dimensions of Emotional Control (inability or unwillingness to express feelings), Self-Reliance (refusal to solicit help), and Violence (endorsement of physical aggression).
• Psychological Well-Being and Relational Quality: Higher scores on the RFHM were significantly positively associated with measures of subjective flourishing, life satisfaction, and authentic self-esteem. Relational measures revealed that men reporting higher RFHM relational dynamics experienced greater depth, mutual respect, and satisfaction in their friendships and romantic relationships.
• Social Justice and Prosocial Orientation: Demonstrating construct convergence with pro-sociality and community orientation, the RFHM subscales—particularly Fostering Compassion and Rejecting Violence—were significantly positively correlated with social justice worldviews, egalitarian gender role attitudes, and higher empathy scores.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established by assessing correlations with constructs conceptually distinct from relational masculinity, such as general impression management and socially desirable responding. RFHM scores exhibited minimal to non-significant overlap with standard social desirability indices, confirming that responses reflect actual interpersonal experiences rather than mere self-enhancement or virtue signaling.

Reliability

The RFHM Scale demonstrates robust internal consistency across its six dimensions and overall scale score, evaluated using classical test theory (Cronbach’s α) and modern structural equation modeling indices (McDonald’s ω):

• Rejecting Shame: α = .82, ω = .83
• Fostering Vulnerability: α = .84, ω = .84
• Rejecting Hyper-Independence: α = .82, ω = .83
• Fostering Connection: α = .83, ω = .83
• Rejecting Violence: α = .84, ω = .84
• Fostering Compassion: α = .81, ω = .82
• Total RFHM Score: Combined composite internal consistency exceeds α = .90, demonstrating exceptional overall reliability for research and clinical purposes.

Item-total correlations for each of the 24 items remained consistently above .50, indicating high item discrimination and psychometric homogeneity within each subscale without pathological redundancy.

Factor Analysis

The scale development program followed rigorous structural equation modeling methodologies across two independent samples of adult men:

Item Pool Generation and Exploratory Phase

An initial pool of 50 candidate items was generated through qualitative consultations with adult men experienced in intensive mentoring cohorts, structured men’s retreats, and gender equity work, cross-referenced with seminal literature on male socialization and relational development (e.g., Reichert, 2019; Way, 2011). Following preliminary cognitive interviewing and pilot testing, items exhibiting excessive skewness, kurtosis, or extreme inter-item multicollinearity were eliminated, yielding a refined 35-item version for factor testing.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analyses were executed to test competing structural models: a single-factor unidimensional model, an uncorrelated orthogonal model, an oblique first-order six-factor model, and a second-order hierarchical model. The final 24-item, oblique six-factor model and its corresponding second-order hierarchical model demonstrated superior fit across standard goodness-of-fit indices:

• Chi-Square: χ² = 390.59, df = 232 (p < .001)
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .96
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .95
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .048 (90% Confidence Interval: [.039, .056])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .044

All standardized factor loadings for individual items onto their respective primary latent factors were statistically significant (p < .001) and substantial, ranging from .68 to .86. Furthermore, all six first-order factors loaded significantly onto a single, overarching second-order latent factor representing Relationships Fostering Healthy Masculinities, confirming the theoretical validity of calculating both specific subscale scores and a global composite score.

Measurement Invariance

To verify that the scale operates equivalently across diverse demographic groups, multigroup confirmatory factor analyses were conducted across racial lines (White men vs. men of color). The RFHM scale demonstrated full configural invariance (identical factor structure), metric invariance (equivalent factor loadings, ΔCFI < .01, ΔRMSEA < .015), and scalar invariance (equivalent item intercepts). These findings confirm that group mean differences across racial categories reflect genuine differences in the latent construct rather than measurement artifact or cultural interpretation bias.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational specifications of the RFHM Scale are summarized below:

• Test Type: Original psychometric self-report questionnaire.
• Format: 24 Likert-type items preceded by a uniform referent stem: “The important people in my life …”
• Response Scale: 6-point response format:
  • 1 = absolutely not true
  • 2 = untrue
  • 3 = kind of untrue
  • 4 = kind of true
  • 5 = true
  • 6 = absolutely true
• Administration Method: Electronic survey or paper-and-pencil self-report administration (estimated completion time: 5–8 minutes).
• Target Population: Adult men aged 18 to 84 years (applicable across young adulthood, middle age, and older adulthood).
• Subscales and Structure:
  • Rejecting Shame: Items 1, 2, 3, 4 (all reverse-scored for total score).
  • Fostering Vulnerability: Items 5, 6, 7, 8.
  • Rejecting Hyper-Independence: Items 9, 10, 11, 12 (all reverse-scored for total score).
  • Fostering Connection: Items 13, 14, 15, 16.
  • Rejecting Violence: Items 17, 18, 19, 20 (all reverse-scored for total score).
  • Fostering Compassion: Items 21, 22, 23, 24.
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Reverse Scoring: Items marked with an asterisk (*) (Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20) are reverse-scored when computing subscale scores and the overall composite RFHM score (i.e., 1 = 6, 2 = 5, 3 = 4, 4 = 3, 5 = 2, 6 = 1).
  • Subscale Scores: Calculated by averaging the four items in each domain (range: 1.0 to 6.0). Higher subscale scores denote greater relational rejection of shame, hyper-independence, or violence, and greater relational encouragement of vulnerability, connection, or compassion.
  • Total Score: Calculated by computing the mean of all 24 items (post reverse-scoring). Higher composite scores reflect an interpersonal network that comprehensively champions healthy masculinities.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Relationships Fostering Healthy Masculinities (RFHM) Scale was formally published in 2025 in the peer-reviewed journal Psychology of Men & Masculinities. The scale is copyright © 2025 by the American Psychological Association (APA). The authors have made the scale accessible for non-commercial academic research, pedagogical purposes, and institutional program evaluation free of charge (No Fee), provided that the instrument is cited accurately according to the original publication details (Di Bianca & Mahalik, 2025). Commercial use, widespread redistribution, or integration into proprietary diagnostic platforms requires formal copyright permission from the American Psychological Association.

References

• Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities (2nd ed.). University of California Press. https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520246997/masculinities
• Di Bianca, M., & Mahalik, J. R. (2022). Relational-cultural theory and masculine socialization: Conceptualizing growth-fostering relationships for men. Journal of Men’s Studies, 30(2), 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/10608265211051515
• Di Bianca, M., & Mahalik, J. R. (2025). Development of the Relationships Fostering Healthy Masculinities Scale. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 26(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000488
• Jordan, J. V., Kaplan, A. G., Miller, J. B., Stiver, I. P., & Surrey, J. L. (1991). Women’s growth in connection: Writings from the Stone Center. Guilford Press. https://www.guilford.com/books/Womens-Growth-in-Connection/Jordan-Kaplan-Miller-Stiver/9780898624687
• Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P., Gottfried, M., & Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3
• Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Beacon Press. https://www.beacon.org/Toward-a-New-Psychology-of-Women-P363.aspx
• Rabinowitz, F. E. (2019). Deepening group psychotherapy with men: Stories and insights for the journey. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000134-000
• Reichert, M. (2019). How to raise a boy: The power of connection to build good men. TarcherPerigee. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/562369/how-to-raise-a-boy-by-michael-reichert-phd/
• Way, N. (2011). Deep secrets: Boys’ friendships and the crisis of connection. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674061361

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)