Most men do not fit the profile of “toxic masculinity,” new study finds

Most men do not fit the common stereotype of “toxic masculinity,” according to a recent study of over 15,000 heterosexual men in New Zealand. The research identifies five distinct groups based on their attitudes toward various problematic traits and beliefs, with the majority of men exhibiting low-to-moderate levels of such characteristics.

These findings challenge prevalent notions about masculinity and suggest a need for more nuanced understandings of men’s identities, as published in the journal Psychology of Men & Masculinities.

The term “toxic masculinity” has gained widespread currency in both public conversations and academic discussions, often used to describe a range of problematic attitudes and behaviors attributed to men. This often includes misogyny, homophobia, emotional repression, and aggression, drawing on sociological perspectives that have sometimes cast masculinity in a negative light.

However, some scholars and critics have questioned the clarity and utility of the term, suggesting it can be overly broad, ill-defined, or even stigmatizing, potentially hindering constructive dialogue about men’s issues and mental health.

Addressing this lack of empirical definition and prevalence in the general population, researchers Deborah Hill Cone, Chris G. Sibley, and Danny Osborne of the University of Auckland, together with Kieren J. Lilly of the University of Queensland, sought to systematically investigate different patterns of masculine attitudes. Their aim was to determine if a “toxic masculinity” profile truly exists, how common it might be, and what other forms of masculinity are present within the male population.

To conduct their investigation, the research team utilized data from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study, specifically from its tenth wave collected between 2018 and 2019. Their sample consisted of 15,808 heterosexual men ranging in age from 18 to 99 years old, with an average age of 51.07 years. This large, nationwide random sample allowed for a comprehensive examination of diverse perspectives across the country.

Participants provided responses to questions assessing eight indicators often linked to problematic masculinity. These indicators included gender identity centrality, which measures the importance of being a man to one’s self-concept, and sexual prejudice, reflecting negative attitudes toward individuals based on their sexual orientation. Other measures were disagreeableness, a personality trait reflecting a lack of amiability, and narcissism, characterized by a heightened sense of self-importance.

The study also evaluated hostile sexism, which involves overtly negative attitudes toward women, and benevolent sexism, encompassing seemingly positive but stereotypical views of women that restrict their roles. Participants’ opposition to domestic violence prevention initiatives was measured as an indicator of attitudes toward harmful behaviors in intimate relationships.

Finally, social dominance orientation (SDO), which reflects a preference for group-based inequality, was included. The researchers noted that while these were often short-form scales or single-item indicators due to survey constraints, they have been shown to reliably approximate their full-form counterparts.

The researchers employed a statistical technique known as Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) to identify distinct subgroups of men based on their patterns of responses to these eight indicators. This method allows for the classification of individuals into profiles that share similar characteristics. After identifying these profiles, the researchers then examined how various demographic and health-related factors correlated with membership in each group.

The LPA revealed five distinct profiles of masculinity within the sample. The largest group, encompassing 35.4% of the men, was labeled “Atoxics.” These individuals consistently reported the lowest levels across all eight indicators of problematic masculinity, suggesting a general absence of these attitudes.

The second largest group, making up 27.2% of the sample, was termed “LGBT-tolerant Moderate.” Men in this profile expressed low-to-moderate levels on most indicators, notably showing low levels of sexual prejudice. They tended to have moderate levels of narcissism and disagreeableness compared to the Atoxic group.

Another significant group, representing 26.6% of the men, was identified as “Anti-LGBT Moderate.” This profile was similar to the LGBT-tolerant Moderate group in many respects but showed noticeably higher levels of sexual prejudice. They also exhibited slightly lower levels of disagreeableness and narcissism compared to the LGBT-tolerant Moderate profile.

Two smaller profiles displayed more pronounced patterns of problematic masculinity. The “Benevolent Toxic” profile comprised 7.6% of the sample. Men in this group reported moderate levels of disagreeableness, narcissism, and opposition to domestic violence prevention.

They scored moderately high on gender identity centrality and hostile sexism, and highest on benevolent sexism and sexual prejudice. This profile suggests a form of toxicity characterized by paternalistic and seemingly positive but restrictive views of women, alongside elevated sexual prejudice.

The smallest group, representing 3.2% of the sample, was labeled the “Hostile Toxic” profile. These men demonstrated the highest levels on most of the problematic indicators, including disagreeableness, hostile sexism, opposition to domestic violence prevention, narcissism, and social dominance orientation.

They also showed high sexual prejudice, although their levels of benevolent sexism and gender identity centrality were moderate. This profile aligns most closely with the commonly understood, severe manifestations of “toxic masculinity.”

The study also explored the demographic and health characteristics associated with membership in these profiles. Men in the Hostile Toxic profile tended to be older, unemployed, single, religious, and identify as an ethnic minority. They also reported higher levels of conservatism, deprivation, and emotional dysregulation.

On the other hand, higher education levels and greater body satisfaction were associated with a lower likelihood of belonging to the Hostile Toxic profile and a higher likelihood of belonging to the Atoxic profile.

For the Benevolent Toxic profile, men in a relationship and those who identified as religious were more likely to belong to this group. This group was also less likely to be highly conservative compared to the Hostile Toxic profile. These findings suggest that the Benevolent Toxic profile may represent a more traditional or paternalistic form of problematic masculinity, often found among men embedded in certain social structures.

The Atoxic and LGBT-tolerant Moderate profiles, when compared to the Hostile Toxic profile, tended to include men who were employed, in a relationship, and held less conservative political views. Specifically, the LGBT-tolerant Moderate profile was more common among younger, nonreligious men living in less deprived areas. The Anti-LGBT Moderate profile was also more common among employed men and those in a relationship but surprisingly associated with being older, suggesting generational differences in specific attitudes.

This research, while extensive, presents certain potential misinterpretations and limitations. It is important to avoid concluding that the identified five profiles represent the definitive “true” number of masculinity types in the population, or that sociodemographic characteristics are absolute determinants of profile membership.

The study’s cross-sectional design means it captures associations at one point in time and cannot establish cause-and-effect relationships or the stability of profile membership over time.

The sample was limited to heterosexual men and a binary conceptualization of gender, meaning its findings may not generalize to non-heterosexual or non-cisgender men, or other cultural contexts beyond New Zealand, a Western, educated, and democratic nation.

Future research could address these limitations by conducting longitudinal studies to examine the stability of masculinity profiles and how they evolve over a person’s life. Expanding research to include non-heterosexual and non-cisgender men, as well as diverse cultural contexts, particularly in the Global South, would enhance the generalizability of findings.

Future studies might also include specific indicators of traditional masculine ideology, such as emotional competence, and more direct measures of attitudes toward sexual violence against women.

The study, “Are Men Toxic? A Person-Centered Investigation Into the Prevalence of Different Types of Masculinity in a Large Sample of New Zealand Men,” was authored by Deborah Hill Cone, Kieren J. Lilly, Chris. G. Sibley, and Danny Osborne.