Masculinity, Social Connection, and Loneliness: A Contextual Behavioral Science Approach to Men’s Social Relationships and Intimacy

Abstract

Loneliness—the discrepancy between actual and desired levels of social connection—is a pervasive public health concern. Research suggests that many men report loneliness and desire more intimate relationships. The Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy posits that intimacy, the meaningful connection between two individuals, is a critical variable in preventing loneliness and develops through a bidirectional process of vulnerable self-disclosure, responsiveness, and perceived partner responsiveness. This manuscript applies the Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy, as interpreted from a contextual behavior science lens, to contextualize the existing research on masculinity and men’s social relationships to inform future research and clinical practice. We review the research on men’s engagement in different components of the model (vulnerable self-disclosure, responsiveness, perceived partner responsiveness), emphasizing how masculinity inform men’s behavior. Research indicates that men often do not engage in behaviors essential to a contextual behavioral model of intimacy (e.g., vulnerable emotions, distress, or asking for help) because such behaviors are inconsistent with masculinity. Research also indicates men often do not acknowledge others’ disclosures or respond with judgment or confusion. Men may also perceive responsiveness as stressful due to social proscriptions regarding receiving help. We discuss implications for research and clinical interventions to ameliorate men’s loneliness.

Loneliness significantly impacts physical and mental health (Park et al., 2020) and is increasing in prevalence (Buecker et al., 2021). Referring to the feelings that arise from a discrepancy between one’s actual and desired levels of social connection (Perlman & Peplau, 1982), loneliness is associated with increased risk for mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior (Beutel et al., 2017; Heuser & Howe, 2019; Stickley & Koyanagi, 2016). Loneliness researchers distinguish the experience of physical isolation, sometimes referred to as social loneliness, and emotional loneliness, the absence of meaningful relationships (Weiss, 1973). Loneliness and social isolation increase the risk for premature mortality at a rate roughly equivalent to smoking 15 cigarettes a day (Holt-Lunstad & Smith, 2012; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015), after controlling for health-related behaviors. The magnitude of mental and physical conditions resulting from loneliness costs the US economy roughly $406 billion a year (Cigna, 2020).

Men¹ report that it is normative to experience loneliness (Arbes et al., 2014) or dissatisfaction with their relationships even if they have a network of friends and family (Thompson & Whearty, 2004). Literature suggests that in general men form and engage in relationships differently than women. Relative to women, men have fewer confidants – a quarter of men have no one outside their networks on whom they can rely–and are more likely use their networks for instrumental, rather than emotional, support (Arbes et al., 2014; King et al., 2020; Liebler & Sandefur, 2002; McKenzie et al., 2018). Men are also more likely to engage in activities built upon shared interests with their male friends, while women’s interactions with their female and male friends are more likely to possess interpersonal sensitivity and affiliative communication (Arbes et al., 2014; Gillespie et al., 2015; McKenzie et al., 2018). Gender differences are particularly distinct among single individuals without children; single men without children are 30-45% more likely to lack essential social contact than their female peers (Patulny & Wong, 2013). Many men value and report satisfaction with their relationships (King et al., 2020; McKenzie et al., 2018; Thompson & Whearty, 2004); however, others are not satisfied with the quality of their relationships (McKenzie et al., 2018; Patulny & Wong, 2013). A national Australian survey found 37% of men were dissatisfied with the quality of their friendships, typically because they do not feel emotionally supported or connected (Arbes et al., 2014). Researchers document an “unspoken phenomenon” (Arbes et al., 2014, p. 6) in which a third of men want more emotionally open relationships but as many as two thirds rarely express this desire and may struggle to initiate more supportive and close relationships (Arbes et al., 2014; Cleary, 2005). Researchers have leveraged multiple theoretical perspectives (ex. attachment, psychodynamic and psychoanalytic, evolutionary, feminist) to understand men’s social connection, intimacy, and loneliness. To the best of our knowledge a Contextual Behavioral Science (CBS) application to men’s relationships and intimacy has not been proposed, despite the utility of an approach that emphasizes contextual and relational processes, rule governed and contingency-shaped behaviors, and application to interventions.

Overall, the research suggests that men who report dissatisfaction with their relationship are reporting a lack of intimacy within their relationships. Intimacy—“reciprocal feelings of trust, emotional closeness, and open communication of thoughts and feelings” (Timmerman, 1991, p. 23) – is critical in developing connections with others, and is a conceptually important variable in in the development of loneliness (Maitland, 2020). While individuals of any gender may experience challenges building intimacy in their relationships, boys and men are socialized into masculinity ideologies that are antithetical to intimacy. Specifically, under hegemonic masculinity–norms and practices that legitimize men’s dominant role in society (Connell, 1995) – boys and men are expected to reject what is associated with femininity and prioritize dominance, status, and toughness, including emotional stoicism and physical strength (Gilmore, 1990; Jansz, 2000). Because emotional expressiveness, seeking support, and intimate relationships with others are associated with femininity (Connell, 2005; Oransky & Marecek, 2009; Plant et al., 2000; Timmers et al., 2003), resistance to intimacy is deeply entrenched in hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 2005), leaving men at risk for loneliness. Qualitative investigations have indicated socialization and acceptance of masculine norms is associated with loneliness (Ratcliffe et al., 2021; Willis & Vickery, 2022), and quantitative research finds conformity to traditional masculinity ideologies is negatively associated with friendship and romantic relationship quality, with medium effect sizes (Campbell & Snow, 1992; Ickes, 1993; Migliaccio, 2010). We argue that the development and maintenance of deficits in interpersonal relating associated with masculinities disrupts the process through which intimacy develops and that viewing this through a CBS lens can guide clinician and researcher understanding and intervention development.

Purpose

This article contextualizes the existing research on the association between masculinity and men’s social relationships through the application of a CBS lens and provides a CBS model to pinpoint gaps in the empirical research, present opportunities for future research, and inform clinical intervention. Specifically, we leverage the contemporary behavioral interpretation of the Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy (Cordova & Scott, 2001; Kanter et al., 2020; Reis & Shaver, 1988) ) –which outlines the moment-by-moment behavioral process through which intimacy forms between individuals–to explain gender differences and social relationships and why some men are unsatisfied with their level of social connection. Rather than viewing behaviors as fixed, a contextual behavior approach conceptualizes them as dynamic processes. Behavioral principles also enable us to consider the learning history of the individual, thus allowing us to understand how masculinity socialization may influence relationships, as well as the influence of different environments (context) on behavior which is informed by learning history. Further, behaviorism emphasizes identifying the function of a particular behavior rather than the behavior itself, thus enabling researchers and clinicians to understand why two seemingly dissimilar behaviors may occur for a similar reason and seemingly similar behaviors occur for different reasons. Finally, by linking the behaviors traditionally associated with masculinity to mid-level terms familiar to clinicians implementing Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), logical intervention points are highlighted, and areas of research are indicated. Of note, we appeal to basic behavioral language throughout the manuscript to allow for practitioners of all contextual behavior science therapies to incorporate the application into their practice, rather than anchoring the language in one treatment modality.

We will first present an overview of the Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy², including the three components of the model: 1) vulnerable self-disclosure, 2) responsiveness; and 3) perceived partner responsiveness. We then provide an overview of behavioral principles which form the basis from which we are interpreting the literature on masculinity socialization and men’s relationships. We then discuss the existing literature on men’s social relationships as it relates to each component of the model, including how learning history and development of rule governed behavior related to masculinity may influence each component. To aid in the interpretation of the literature from a CBS perspective, we have provided Figure 1 which synthesizes the literature (the majority of which was not conducted from a CBS perspective) into an adaptation of the four-term contingency model. Finally, we provide recommendations for future research and clinical interventions. This manuscript was not pre-registered and did not use human subjects or original data, thus review and approval by an Institutional Review Board was not necessary.

Figure 1.

Adapted Four-Term Contingency Model for Men’s Masculinity and Social Connection

Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy

The Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy (Reis & Shaver, 1988) when translated through a contemporary behavioral (Cordova & Scott, 2001) or contextual behavioral (Haworth et al., 2015; Kanter et al., 2020; Maitland et al., 2017) lens, suggests that intimacy forms through a reciprocal dyadic process. In this process, one individual engages in a self-disclosure that is vulnerable to interpersonal punishment (vulnerable behaviors), and the other individual responds in a way that is perceived as responsive—or put otherwise, reinforces that behavior rather than punishing it. Prototypical responses to vulnerable behaviors are often vulnerable themselves, leading to an opportunity for the process to repeat itself with the roles of speaker and listener reversed. Thus, intimacy forms when one individual engages in a vulnerable behavior, wherein vulnerable is defined as behaviors that leave oneself open to hurt by another person or “engaging in a behavior that experience has taught us risks punishment by someone else” (Cordova & Scott, 2001, p. 76), and that behavior is met with a response that is perceived as kind, caring, or accepting.

While the Interpersonal Model of Intimacy has been described in behavioral and general contextual behavioral language, it can also be understood using middle level terms familiar to clinicians implementing ACT. While the full interpretation of the Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy through an ACT or hexaflex lens is beyond the scope of the current paper, psychological flexibility or inflexibility may impact an individual’s willingness to engage in the intimacy building process. Similar to the model proposed by Kanter et al., (2020), an interpretation of the Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy can be conceptualized as starting with present moment awareness. Individuals must have an awareness of the context in which vulnerability is expressed to understand if that may be effective behavior in the moment. Further, viewed as the core organizing principle of intimacy and closeness by some (Reis et al., 2004), perceived partner responsiveness is deeply impacted by present moment awareness. Individuals must understand others’ vulnerable expressions and provide appropriate consequences to reinforce the behavior and avoid inadvertent punishment. Similarly, the individual who engaged in the vulnerable behavior must be aware of the other individual’s response instead of attending to their own experience for the response to have its intended function.

Acceptance may also be viewed as essential for engaging in vulnerable behavior given that these behaviors can frequently bring up powerful aversive thoughts or feelings. Similarly, effective responding to vulnerability frequently requires elements of acceptance as well. Vulnerable behavior that others engage in may include feedback, requests, or emotional expression that brings up unpleasant thoughts and feelings for the listener. Consequently, both speaker and listeners may need to engage in committed action guided by values instead of what may seem like a normative action. Cognitive defusion may also be essential for engaging in the full process of intimacy. For instance, individuals who view vulnerability as weakness, may endeavor to avoid all vulnerability so as not to be weak. Similarly, there may be contexts where individuals rigidly adhere to a rule surrounding masculine identity that may lead to ineffective responding to individuals who have just engaged in a vulnerable behavior. Similar issues may arise if individuals engage in self-as-content behavior. Ultimately, psychological flexibility can manifest in the interpersonal model of intimacy in many different ways and should be viewed as contributing to effective engagement in intimacy generating behaviors no differently than any other effective behavior an individual struggles with given their lived experience.

The literature supporting elements of the Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy promoting closeness is robust. Early studies that attempted to experimentally manipulate disclosure found that the potential for disclosure resulted in more closeness (Aron et al., 1997). Generally, when appropriate, disclosure is predictive of higher-quality relationships (Willems et al., 2020), particularly when the disclosure is focused on the relationship (Tan et al., 2012). More recent research has indicated the relative importance of responsiveness (Reis, 2012). Researchers have concluded that responsiveness is the active ingredient that leads to relationships being identified as satisfying and healthy (Reis & Gable, 2015) and that responsiveness evolves through reciprocal interpersonal processes (Canevello & Crocker, 2010) to predict high relationship quality. Indeed, experimental manipulations of responsiveness (Haworth et al., 2015) have found that high responsiveness predicted closeness and desire to disclose over time following a brief experimental interaction.

Masculinity Socialization from a CBS Perspective

The factors that shape and maintain behavior have been proposed in the four-term contingency model: motivative operations, antecedents, behavior, and consequences (Michael, 1982). What is referred to as socialization to masculinity within gender research can be conceptualized as both contingency-shaped behavior and the development of verbal rules related to behaviors associated with masculinity. The basic tenets of behaviorism suggest that behavior is shaped through the pairing of stimuli (classical conditioning) and responses with the environment (operant conditioning) that result in increases (reinforcement) or decreases in behavior (punishment). Behavior – including private behaviors such as emotions and beliefs—is shaped through repeated interactions between the individual and their environment in which behavior is reinforced or punished or the development of rule governed behavior in the absence of multiple exemplar training. Cues or environmental conditions can serve as antecedents, or triggers, for specific behavior. The cumulative experiences and interactions with the environment that have shaped and influenced behavior form one’s learning history. Children’s behaviors are shaped first primarily through learning experiences with their primary caregivers. As their environment expands, their learning continues and their behavior, including behaviors within relationships, is also shaped by peers, partners, and others, both directly and through modeling (Mesman & Groeneveld, 2018). Thus, behaviors associated with relationships, including implemented strategies to form, maintain, seek comfort, and willingness to be vulnerable, are shaped by environmental contingencies or consequences.

Through multiple exemplar training or socially transmitted information, such as being told a rule to follow, individuals internalize verbal descriptions of contingencies that guide their behavior, leading to the development of rule governed behavior. Rule governed behavior refers to learning in the absence of direct contact with contingencies, but rather behavior that is consequated by a verbally mediated process (Skinner, 1969, 1974). Rule governed behavior is controlled in part by a verbal description of the contingency, such that the verbal stimuli for the rule alters the function of other stimuli which allows for learning without directly experiencing consequences. The norm of “men don’t talk about their feelings” may establish emotional expression as aversive and decrease the likelihood of expression emotions even if one has not directly experienced punishment for expression (Schwab & Dupuis, 2022). One potential effect of rule governed behavior is insensitivity to the immediate environmental contingencies (Skinner, 1969, 1974). Development of verbal rules regarding men’s emotional expression as socially inappropriate, and therefore aversive, may render one insensitive to available reinforcement for emotional expression and result in rigid emotional suppression functioning as pliance.

Men who report high levels of adherence or conformity to masculine norms may engage in behavior shaped through environmental contingencies, as well as rule governed behavior that has become largely insensitive to environmental contingencies when the behavior in question is in a relational frame of opposition (Dymond & Barnes, 1995) with masculinity. High levels of adherence to masculine norms may also be associated with high levels of cognitive fusion, where thoughts about the consequences of violating masculine norms are treated as absolute truths (Gillanders et al., 2014). Thus, violation of masculine norms could reasonably be a perceived threat to one’s sense of self depending on the structure of the verbal network (see Figure 2) that characterizes masculinity (ex. “men don’t talk about their feelings”) (Barnes-Holmes et al., 2000). To exemplify the potentially broad relational network that masculinity impacts, Figure 2 reflects a hypothetical relational network of self-identity as it relates to masculinity.

Figure 2.

Hypothetical Relational Network of a Man’s Self-Identity Related to Masculinity

Almost every behavior serves a purpose or function for the individual, and understanding the function of a behavior involves identifying the consequences or rules that maintain or reinforce it. Within the four-term contingency model, motivative operations (i.e., establishing or abolishing operations) will alter the effectiveness of a reinforcer or punisher and influence the likelihood of the behavior occurring (see Figure 1). One’s history of reinforcement and punishment and verbal rules may serve as motivative operations, as well specifics of the situation (ex. deprivation). Notably, the same behavior may serve different functions depending upon the context; in one context, crying may function to elicit help or support, whereas, in another context, it may function to prompt the other person to leave or cease a particular behavior. Thus, behaviorists emphasize the idiographic nature of behavior and caution against topographical interpretations of behavior, wherein a behavior is observed and labeled (“the what”) without identifying the function it serves (“the why”). In the interpersonal domain, outcomes such as emotions or feelings of closeness emerge as a function of the behavior and subsequent consequence or are influenced through verbal descriptions of contingencies (see Figure 1). Critically, behavior may be exhibited in similar situations that were not part of the original learning context in what is called generalization, or may only occur in a specific context (discrimination). Context may include the physical setting, as well as the audience and conversational/interactional tenor (see Figure 1). Individuals whose intimacy-related behaviors are punished across contexts will be very unlikely to engage in the behavior in any context, whereas an individual whose intimacy-related behaviors were punished in only some specific contexts may engage in the behavior in contexts where reinforcement occurred only (i.e., under stimulus control). Importantly (and depicted in an adaptation of the four-term contingency model), multiple exemplar training in which one repeatedly engages in a behavior and is exposed to the consequences results in the formation of verbal rules, including pliance behaviors, as well as tracking behaviors (Hayes et al., 2004), which are sensitive to context and direct contingencies (see Figure 1). Much of the behavior related to intimacy can be conceptualized and understood through a functional analysis of verbal behavior (Skinner, 1957) or relational frame theory (Hayes et al., 2001), reviews of which exceed the scope of the current manuscript, but generally speaking facilitate understanding of symbolic language which is needed for comprehending adherence to masculine norms.

Application of An Intimacy Framework to Men’s Relationships

Component 1: Vulnerable Self-Disclosure

The Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy posits that to establish feelings of connection, one must first engage in a behavior (verbal or non-verbal) that risks punishment based upon past experience (e.g., learning history). We cannot make universal claims about what are vulnerable behaviors for men because what behaviors risk punishment varies based upon the individual’s experience and context. However, under hegemonic masculine norms, men are assumed and socialized to be unemotional and stoic (Addis, 2011; Chandler, 2019; Jansz, 2000), and many men report fear that disclosure of emotions, distress, and needing help will be punished (McKenzie et al., 2018). Thus, there is some indication that when men adhere to masculine norms, they are doing so in a way that reflects high levels of psychological inflexibility and/or avoidance. Given previous findings linking experiential avoidance to fear of intimacy (Maitland, 2020), violating these norms may mean engaging in a behavior vulnerable to interpersonal punishment. Therefore, we consider patterns of men’s disclosure of emotions, challenging experiences, and requesting help as well as the ways that masculinity socialization may influence these behaviors, with a caveat that not all men will find such behaviors vulnerable.

Men engage in the vulnerable behavior [e.g., disclosure of distress, emotions, and requests for informal and formal (i.e., professional) support] at lower rates than women (McKenzie et al., 2018; Patulny & Wong, 2013; Shepherd et al., 2023). Overall, studies consisting of different samples (ex. early adults, geriatric populations) have found men often avoid making disclosures about their challenging situations, particularly those evoking sadness, shame, and fear (King et al., 2020; Leaper, 2019; McKenzie et al., 2018; Oliffe et al., 2017; Schwab et al., 2016; Schwab & Dupuis, 2022; Wenger & Oliffe, 2014). Disclosure is particularly rare within many male friendships; men are less likely to disclose to a male peer as opposed to a female peer or partner (McKenzie et al., 2018; Oliffe et al., 2011; Vierra et al., 2023). Many men do not have anyone with whom they can discuss mental health struggles (Liang & George, 2012); national surveillance data indicates only 15% of men discuss their mental health with a close friend (relative to 31% of women), and among those under 50 years old, 20% of men will discuss their mental health relative to 43% of women (Goddard, 2023). Studies of individuals who recently engaged in suicidal behaviors found that up to two-thirds of men would choose never to disclose emotional matters to anyone (Cleary, 2005, 2019), for fear of being viewed as weak. Many men choose not to seek support because they do not know how to ask or experience prohibitive levels of embarrassment or social consequences (Bryant-Bedell & Waite, 2010; Herron et al., 2020). When men do self-disclose, they report their sense of themselves as masculine is threatened (Cox et al., 2020). Thus, many men will suppress emotions, downplay, or deny their emotions, or attempt to reassert their capabilities following vulnerable disclosure (Addis, 2011; McKenzie et al., 2018; Schwab et al., 2016; Schwab & Dupuis, 2022).

Many men do attempt to navigate their desire to have more emotionally disclosive relationships within the confines of masculinity. In relationships with men, humor (e.g., joking, teasing, and banter) is a commonly cited method of building connection (Weaver et al., 2016; Williams, 2009). The function humor serves varies considerably across men. Men simultaneously discuss humor as a way of enjoying men’s company and sharing common histories which may carry a level of vulnerability (Williams, 2009). Men may also use humor to hide embarrassment, shame, and concerns, and men who attempt to disclose without the use of humor risk being labeled “too serious,” and weak (Weaver et al., 2016; Williams, 2009, p. 76). Heterosexual men do engage in vulnerable self-disclose with romantic partners (Umberson et al., 2015; Wenger & Oliffe, 2014); however this may create tension and conflict if spouses are the only form of support (Burn & Ward, 2005; Coen et al., 2013) and places men in positions of having no support after spousal death or divorce (King et al., 2020; Ryckebosch-Dayez et al., 2016).

Learning History and Development of Rule Governed behavior.

Disclosure behaviors are shaped by environmental contingencies such that disclosure is considered a vulnerable behavior based upon the learning history of the individual. Many men’s learning histories include gender policing –behaviors from others that serve to prevent or punish an individual or group behavior as insufficiently masculine (Reigeluth & Addis, 2016)--that punishes self-disclosure and facilitates adherence to verbal rules (i.e., cognitive fusion). The extent to which a man’s learning history includes a history of punishment or extinction of disclosure, help-seeking, and emotional expression and the contexts in which punishment occurred will influence his disclosure behaviors, making certain disclosure more vulnerable and thus functioning as motivative augmentals.

Particularly for children assigned male at birth, behaviors associated with heterosexual masculinity (Kane, 2006; Klann et al., 2018) are reinforced by parents and caregivers. Expression of emotion and interdependence may be punished or simply met with no reinforcement (Schwab et al., 2016; Solebello & Elliott, 2011). Many boys have close friendships during childhood (Way, 2011), suggesting that these friendships provide contexts in which vulnerable behavior is reinforced (Reigeluth et al., 2016; Way et al., 2014). However, as boys age across primary school and adolescence, behaviors associated with femininity (e.g., expressions of sadness) are more likely to be punished through ridicule and/or judgment by peers (Addis, 2011; Nielson et al., 2020; Oransky & Marecek, 2009; Reigeluth & Addis, 2016; Shawcroft et al., 2023; Way et al., 2014) while those associated with masculinity (e.g., expressions of anger) are reinforced (Cassidy & Stevenson, 2005; Chaplin & Aldao, 2013). Adult men also report that when they have disclosed stressful life experiences, mental health concerns, and relationship losses, their friends may ignore them, ridicule them, or tell them to manage it by themselves, resulting in men reporting lower intentions to disclose in the future (McKenzie et al., 2018; Schwab et al., 2016; Schwab & Dupuis, 2022; Wenger & Oliffe, 2014). The punishing effects of gender policing may extend to those who witness, but do not directly experience it (Schwab & Dupuis, 2022), suggesting the observational learning and formation of socially mediated verbal rules regarding disclosure behavior (i.e., rule governed behavior). Indeed, men who report wanting closer relationships with their peers overwhelmingly reported fears of violating masculine norms, even if they had never experienced negative reactions to disclosure, as a barrier to enhancing and deepening the relationship (McKenzie et al., 2018; Schwab et al., 2016; Schwab & Dupuis, 2022; Vierra et al., 2023) further indicating the role of cognitive fusion and self-as-content in avoidance of intimacy. This learning history leads to the development of augmentals which may play an important role in engaging in intimacy generating behaviors (see Figure 1).

Men’s vulnerable behaviors may not be punished in all contexts, and thus their disclosure behaviors are under stimulus control (see Figure 1). For example, male cancer patients report irrelevant or unsupportive responses from friends when disclosing their fears; however, report validating responses from other male cancer patients, which reinforces disclosure behavior to male cancer patients only (Wenger & Oliffe, 2014). Romantic relationships with partners may be a context in which men’s disclosure is reinforced (Shulman & Kipnis, 2001). Young men report seeking romantic partnership to enhance social connection (Smiler et al., 2008), suggesting they are tracking contexts in which social prohibition of emotional expression is relaxed. Men in partnerships report that they do, over time, become more comfortable displaying emotions, which they report to be a vulnerable behavior (Umberson et al., 2015). Increased comfort with disclosure of emotions suggests that men’s disclosure is reinforced through their partner’s response and men’s perception of those responses. Older men report more willingness to engage in potentially vulnerable behavior as they navigate their connection to masculine norms in the face of aging (King et al., 2020; Robbins et al., 2016; Thompson & Whearty, 2004; Verstaen et al., 2020). However, many older men may continue to struggle to engage in vulnerable behavior throughout their lifespan (King et al., 2020; for review, Robbins et al., 2016), which we would argue is the result of a lengthy learning history in which behaviors that facilitate social connection and ward off loneliness are punished and consequently, rule governed behavior around avoiding behaviors that facilitate social connection are developed. Some men report spontaneously disclosing distress or seeking help from other men, a behavior they experienced as risky and vulnerable given their learning history, suggesting that loneliness may be a deprivation state in which the reinforcing value of connection increases to a level that an individual engages in a low frequency behavior (see Figure 1). Consistent with a CBS perspective of the Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy, when the disclosure was responded to with empathy and support, they experienced feelings of connection (McKenzie et al., 2018; Wenger & Oliffe, 2014) leading to changes in their overall disclosure behaviors. For men whose vulnerable behaviors are consistently reinforced across contexts (e.g., parent, peer, romantic relationships), we expect these behaviors to generalize across settings and men will regularly engage in disclosure and develop and maintain close relationships with other men who are similarly disposed.

Component 2: Responding to Vulnerable Self-Disclosure.

There is comparatively less research on how masculinity influences responsiveness to another’s disclosure relative to the literature on vulnerability. Stating that one singular type of response is optimal is contrary principles within behaviorism and a functional understanding of the Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy (Kanter et al., 2020). to the effect on the discloser determines if the response is helpful and/or validating. Many individuals find listeners who engage in reflective comments and questions aimed at helping the listener further describe their experience to be helpful (Burleson, 2013). In addition, genuineness and communication of care may also be helpful. Generally distancing or negative responses, such as judgments, trivializing, or irrelevant comments are not experienced as responsive (Leaper, 2019). As detailed below, these general tendencies may help contextualize the frequency of effective responding to vulnerability for those who adhere to masculine norms.

In dyadic studies of friends, women are more likely to engage in active listening and provide extensions and elaborations to their friend’s disclosures than men (Leaper et al., 1995; Leaper, 2019). Men respond to a friend’s disclosures with more negative or irrelevant comments than women (Leaper, 2019), and are more competitive than women in same-gender friendships, but not in mixed-gender groups (Singleton & Vacca, 2007). Across qualitative studies, many participants indicate that when they have disclosed their emotions, health concerns, or other stressors to another, men’s responses are apathetic, irrelevant, invalidating, or directly ridiculing (McKenzie et al., 2018; Schwab & Dupuis, 2022; Wenger & Oliffe, 2014; Williams, 2009). Qualitative and quantitative research has found that many men often do not know how to respond when a friend discloses and wanted to better understand how to respond (Arbes et al., 2014; Montiel et al., 2023; Schwab et al., 2016).

Learning History and Development of Rule Governed Behavior.

Through observing others and their own interactions, boys may develop rules and behavioral repertoires of how to respond to other’s vulnerable behaviors. These rules and repertoires, when problematic, are likely characterized by a lack of psychological flexibility to deviate from traditional gender norms or an absence of validating responses within one’s behavioral repertoire due to an absence of opportunity which impacted skill development. Responding to a friend’s personal disclosure with validation or connection to one’s own experiences may challenge some men’s traditional masculinity norms (Pollastri et al., 2018) as it may involve emotional expression or vulnerability. However, if a peer engages in a vulnerable behavior and the recipient rebuffs, criticizes, ridicules, or ignores the disclosure, their response may by reinforced by the removal of the vulnerable behavior. For example, if one boy discloses feelings of distress to a friend, and the friend responds with a joke, the joke may be reinforced through from the reaction of others (if in a group setting) or intrinsically by asserting one’s dominance within hegemonic masculinity. Overall, the same gender policing that may limit men’s willingness to disclose may also limit their willingness and skillfulness at responding to others. Figure 1 thus includes responses to others with the four-term contingency model. For example, if one boy has developed verbal rules that “men want advice, not validation for their problems” he may respond to a peer’s disclosure with a joke or unsupportive comment. Those rules may have developed through multiple exemplar training in which his past attempts to respond with validation and support were punished, and this learning history may also augment the value of the reinforcement or punishment.

Component 3: Perceived Partner Responsiveness.

Ideally, experiencing others as responsive to one’s vulnerable behaviors will facilitate ongoing disclosure, including potentially evoking reciprocal disclosure, producing closer relationships and mitigating loneliness. However, whether a normatively supportive response to a vulnerable disclosure is reinforcing varies. For example, in one study, men who endorse hostile attitudes toward those who violate traditional gender roles reported less satisfaction with support they received from a female partner, which was mediated by feeling weak when relying on others and a fear of others exploiting their need for support (Fisher et al., 2021). In one of the few studies to include women, women who endorsed hostile sexism also reported a discomfort with support, suggesting that sexist norms are a problem across genders (Fisher et al., 2021). One study found men exhibited increased cortisol response when receiving support from a close male partner compared to men who were not in the high closeness condition and women in the high closeness condition (Smith et al., 2009). The authors concluded that men feel normative pressure against receiving emotional support in high-intimacy contexts, and thus the experience may be stressful (Smith et al., 2009), producing escape behavior even when the partner is providing responses intended as supportive.

Learning History and Development of Rule Governed Behavior.

An individual’s learning history will also influence how men perceive a partner’s responsiveness. Because many men have experienced unhelpful or judgmental responses to their disclosures (McKenzie et al., 2018; Wenger & Oliffe, 2014), they enter interactions with hesitancy and fear of disclosure and with a potentially heightened sensitivity to stimuli associated with rejection. This may reflect a lack of contact with the present moment or cognitive fusion. Further, if behaviors associated with help-seeking have been punished and behaviors associated with autonomy and stoicism reinforced, receiving support is more likely to initially prompt a negative response because help-seeking has been punished (Morse & Kelleher, 2022); however, the discrepancy from historical consequences for help-seeking may facilitate new learning (Donahoe et al., 1993). In contrast, early experiences of support may contribute to a learning history in which receiving empathic responses is experienced positively. A study of adolescent male friendship dyads found that many dyads engaged in a pattern of vulnerable expression and affirming and supportive responses (Reigeluth et al., 2016). While the extent of perceived responsiveness was not measured, this study reflects that when disclosure of a vulnerable behavior (disclosure of emotions and stress) is empathically responded to and perceived as validating, the disclosures continue. The participants in dyads characterized by disclosures-responsiveness are subverting masculine norms, and this interaction contributes to a learning history in which disclosure and responsiveness are reinforced in some contexts (Reigeluth et al., 2016).

Implications of an Intimacy Framework

Future Research

This interpretation of the existing research offers opportunities through which CBS researchers could contribute to the literature on men’s social relationships by investigating each of the components of the intimacy process from a CBS approach. Researchers should investigate how learning histories influence what behaviors are vulnerable, and the development of rule governed behavior promoting sensitivity and insensitivity to interpersonal consequences, which may reflect cognitive fusion. Further, there is comparatively limited research on men’s responsiveness to disclosure and how they perceive responsiveness. Research on how learning histories lead to psychological inflexibility and influence response to a partner’s vulnerable behavior and perceived responsiveness is needed. Additionally, researchers whose approach is informed by an ACT perspective may wish to apply elements of psychological flexibility to masculinity and engaging in intimacy behaviors. Specifically, there is limited extant literature exploring how specific facets of psychological flexibility map onto behavior that adheres to masculine norms (e.g., Herreen et al., 2022). Researchers interested in the phenomena could consider experiments in which adherence to masculine norms and psychological flexibility operate as unique or synergistic moderators and utilizes paradigms such as the fast friends procedure (Aron et al., 1997) to assess engagement in the interpersonal model of intimacy. For example, researchers could manipulate the gender of the RA conducting the procedure or randomize men based upon level of norm adherence to evoke-only or evoke-and-reinforce conditions (Haworth et al., 2015). Overall, future research should conceptualize men’s social relationships through a CBS perspective to explicitly examine the moment-by-moment process through which intimacy develops.

There is little research that captures the within-person variability in disclosure, responsiveness, and perceived responsiveness. Experimental designs that manipulate environmental contexts, antecedents, and consequences of behaviors associated with masculinity will enhance our understanding men’s social interactions. Future research should also consider concurrently examining associations between psychological flexibility, masculinity, social relationships, and loneliness through ecological momentary assessment methodologies to examine within-person variability across situations and contexts. Such methods could employ some level of assessment of the environmental context in which different behaviors are evoked. Future research should also examine relationship type as a context for the development of intimacy, such as how friendship dyads, of single- and mixed-genders, and romantic couples build intimacy in the moment and across time. While there are several clinical applications relevant to a CBS interpretation of the Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy to men’s social relationships (see Clinical Implications), further research is indicated. For example, therapyclient gender matching may be an intuitive opportunity for men to develop intimacy with another man in the context of therapy, however given the idiographic nature of each individual’s learning history (ex. punishment of disclosure by people of all genders), future research is indicated.

While not specific to a CBS approach, we also call for an intersectional approach regarding how masculinity contributes to components of the intimacy process. There is a critical need to examine engagement in the intimacy process across development, as well as across identities, including gender identity, race, ethnicity, age, ability, and sexuality, which craft different masculinities (Silverstein, 2016; Wong & Wang, 2022). Examining cohort effects is also critical given the changing landscape of masculinity and conformity to masculinity across generations (Horowitz & Parker, 2024). Research examining differences across identities, particularly quantitative research and research that recruits samples of multiple identities would enhance our ability to make research-informed statements about differences and similarities in social connection across groups.

Clinical Implications

A CBS interpretation of the Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy of the research on men’s social relationships may inform several interventions for social connection. Functional Analytic Psychotherapy (FAP) is a transdiagnostic, process-based therapy that explicitly focuses on intimacy, both within and beyond the therapeutic alliance, and can be flexibly applied to the unique difficulties of any client (Kohlenberg & Tsai, 1991). FAP therapists use operant conditioning to shape problematic behaviors into workable ones as they occur during the therapy session. A core tenet of FAP is the behaviors that a client struggles with in their day-to-day life will manifest in the interaction with the therapist. In the context of a client struggling with intimacy, therapists might expect clients to struggle with making disclosures, struggle to effectively respond to the therapists’ disclosures, or struggle with identifying appropriate times to engage in vulnerability or responsiveness. These occurrences of daily life problems are deemed clinically relevant behaviors (CRB). FAP practitioners categorize CRB into three categories: 1) CRB1, when the clinically relevant behavior is the problematic form of the behavior; 2) CRB2, an improvement in the problematic behavior that occurs in session; and 3) CRB3, the client’s functional interpretation of the behavior or the rules about their own behavior that govern the occurrence of the behavior (Kohlenberg & Tsai, 1991).

FAP therapist behavior in session is guided by five functionally defined rules. The first rule is to watch for CRB, which allows therapists to respond with intentionality rather than inadvertent shaping of CRB. Rule 2 guides therapists to evoke CRB, and therapists creating a context where the client can engage in CRB, such as asking a question that might result in a vulnerable disclosure. This necessitates an idiographic case conceptualization in which an awareness of motivating operations and stimulus control of intimacy-related behaviors has been developed. Figure 1 may be used to assist FAP clinicians in conceptualizing how learning histories, verbal rules, and behavioral repertoires consistent with masculinity may influence loneliness. Rule 3 states that therapists should contingently respond to CRB. Typically, this looks like therapists blocking CRB1 and prompting for a new response, reinforcing CRB2 using naturalistic reinforcement (Ferster, 1971), or helping clients understand how their articulated CRB3 manifests in the therapy session. For example, a therapist may notice a male client’s tendency to engage in behaviors that initially promote intimacy but then abruptly move away from intimacy (Schwab et al., 2016) and the therapist will attempt to evoke a more disclosing response. Rule 4 instructs therapists to observe the impact of their response on client behavior. As such, Rule 4 facilitates therapist awareness of the impact they have had on their client’s behavior and allows them to adjust strategies as needed based on future occurrences of CRB. Rule 5 guides therapists to generalize the new adaptive behaviors (CRB2) outside of session which in the case of those struggling with intimacy would involve engaging in the intimacygenerating behaviors in other relationships.

The focus on the in-vivo behavior and use of naturalistic reinforcement results in a uniquely strong therapeutic alliance that has come to characterize FAP (Tsai et al., 2009) and is arguably a function of the therapist and client engaging in the Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy. Researchers have explored how the Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy manifests in FAP (Haworth et al., 2015), how to measure the intimacy process in FAP (Kuczynski et al., 2020), and how the Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy can be used to aid in case conceptualization and treatment implementation (Maitland et al., 2017; Maitland & Lewis, 2022). This approach to implementing the treatment is known as the Awareness, Courage, and Love model (Tsai et al., 2013), and interventions developed based on this model have shown to enhance social connection in dyads (Kohlenberg et al., 2015) and groups (Tsai et al., 2020). As such, FAP, or integrating FAP into other empirically supported treatments, with men who present with deficits in social connection may be helpful, and future research is needed. Notably, a study comprised of participants who reported high levels of fear of intimacy, 50% of whom were male, demonstrated significant changes in fear of intimacy after receiving FAP compared to watchful waiting (Maitland et al., 2016). These significant effects in a small sample provide preliminary evidence of the potential of FAP as an effective intervention to mitigate the maladaptive elements of masculinity on loneliness through enhanced intimacy.

While there have been relatively fewer studies investigating ACT processes in intimacy, ACT also may mitigate the social disruptions attributable to problematic manifestations of intimacy (Hayes et al., 2012). In ACT, clinicians work with clients to facilitate psychological flexibility, the tendency to respond to situations in ways that facilitate valued goal pursuit (Doorley et al., 2020), while decreasing experiential avoidance, the unwillingness to remain in contact with internal experiences and the resulting attempts to avoid or control those experiences (Hayes et al., 1996). ACT clinicians regularly target six processes (and their inverse maladaptive counterparts) that are thought to contribute to psychological flexibility (Rolffs et al., 2018). These six processes include acceptance (willingness to come in contact with experiences), contact with the present moment (being aware of current experiences), self-as-context (being the consciousness that experiences thoughts and feelings), defusion (gaining distance from thoughts and feelings), values (understanding and being connected to what’s important to you), and committed action (engaging in activity that brings you towards values). These domains are ideally intervened upon using functionally rather than topographically defined intervention strategies.

Intervening upon ACT target processes can enhance the social functioning of those who have conformed to masculine norms. Theorists have articulated how a gendered social learning history may lead to individuals fusing with norms dictated by hegemonic masculinity (Sylvester & Hayes, 2010). Interventions targeting acceptance, cognitive defusion and self-as-context may lead individuals to engage in workable behaviors that are consistent with their values and needs rather than adhering to norms and avoiding discomfort that is associated with trying new behaviors that are values consistent but are inconsistent with those norms. Preliminary empirical findings suggest that experiential avoidance may underly aspects of fear of intimacy, loneliness, and resulting psychological distress (Maitland, 2020). Researchers have found that psychological inflexibility mediates the relationship between adherence to masculine norms and depression (Herreen et al., 2022), and ACT interventions can mitigate loneliness (Zarling et al., 2023). Theoretical and empirical writings suggest that ACT interventions that increase psychological flexibility have the potential to be effective for addressing the social disruptions associated with conformity to hegemonic masculinity. For example, a male client who values family but is experiencing loneliness may devote extensive time to his job at the expense of time with his family because earning money is a way of contributing to his family and consistent with masculine norms. Identifying additional behaviors consistent with his value of family that facilitate social connection may be helpful.

While both FAP and ACT may offer unique benefits for addressing men’s loneliness, adherence to traditional masculine norms is a commonly referenced barrier to men’s engagement in mental health treatment (Addis & Mahalik, 2003), particularly if they perceive the therapy format to violate gender roles, such as male support groups (Blazina & Marks, 2001). Future research may wish to examine how adherence to traditional masculinity affects responses to descriptions of FAP and ACT. The scalability of interpersonal therapies to address men’s loneliness as a public health concern also offers several challenges given the necessity of rigorous training, need for individual contingent responding, availability of clinicians, and the time-intensive nature of therapy. While more data on large-scale interventions is needed, preliminary support on the acceptability and utility of a relationship wellness digital application designed to build connection between partners suggests digital interventions may hold promise (Rogge et al., 2024). Given that behaviors that disrupt the Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy originate in learning histories, research examining interventions on healthy relationships for parents/caregivers as well as children, particularly at the transition to adolescence, should be developed and rigorously evaluated.

Conclusion

A framework of men’s social relationships and propensity for loneliness captures the nuances of how each interaction may vary by context and learning history. It is the hope that this framework will enhance interventions to foster intimacy, inform future research, and ultimately call into question existing gender ideologies that impede social relationships and create societies of lonely individuals.

Highlights.

• Many men report loneliness and a desire for more intimacy in relationships

• Behavior consistent with inflexible masculinity may disrupt men’s relationships

• Men develop rules for how to behave in relationships based on past experiences

• Research is needed on men’s responses to vulnerability and view of others’ responses

• A contextual behavior science understanding of men’s behavior in relationships can help clinical work