The dominant conceptual narrative in research on and measurement of masculinities has emphasized that greater adherence to traditional masculine norms is associated with a range of harmful outcomes. The primacy of this deficit-focused may have shaped the development of measures of masculinities in ways that underrepresent adaptive, relational, or health-promoting dimensions of masculine identity, even as it remains an open empirical question whether such dimensions exist in ways that can be meaningfully defined and measured. This systematic review uses a masculinities theory lens to offer a conceptual and methodological analysis of 65 measures of masculinity published between 1974 and 2024 with a focus on five key issues: the primacy of deficit-based approaches; limited attention to relationality or social context; lack of cultural attunement; sample homogeneity; and inconsistent psychometric standards. Results indicate that 78 percent of measures adopted a more deficit-based approach, while only 22 percent incorporated strengths-based elements. Most measures demonstrated limited relational focus and cultural attunement, and 66 percent relied on samples lacking demographic diversity. Psychometric findings were mixed: internal validity and reliability were generally adequate, but only 9 percent of measures demonstrated strong evidence for external validity. These findings highlight the need for a more balanced measurement landscape that integrates strengths-based approaches, improves contextual precision and relational framing, addresses cultural considerations using diverse samples, and strengthens evidence for generalizability. Future directions for developing the next generation of masculinities measures are discussed.
Fisher et al. (Thu,) studied this question.