How widespread is the phenomenon often labeled as “toxic masculinity” in Western societies? A recent large-scale study conducted in New Zealand suggests the issue may be far less pervasive than popular discourse implies. The research found that only a small minority of men exhibited the most extreme and hostile forms of toxic attitudes, and that wanting to feel “manly” did not automatically mean a person held socially harmful beliefs.
The phrase “toxic masculinity” first emerged in the 1980s to describe how certain traits traditionally associated with masculinity—such as dominance, emotional suppression, or aggression—can, in some contexts, lead to negative social outcomes. Over time, however, the term has expanded far beyond its original academic roots. Today it is often used to describe a wide range of behaviors, from sexual harassment and violence to everyday issues like men avoiding household responsibilities.
In many respects, the concept has been useful. It has helped draw attention to the pressure men face to conform to rigid gender expectations, which can contribute to mental health struggles such as anxiety, depression, and emotional isolation. It has also encouraged conversations around emotional openness, vulnerability, and healthier expressions of masculinity. At the same time, researchers warn that the casual or overly broad use of the term can be misleading. When applied without nuance, it can suggest that masculinity itself is inherently harmful, that all men share the same values, or that traits labeled “masculine” are universally negative.
Scholars have long examined related ideas, including hegemonic or patriarchal masculinity, which focuses on how culturally dominant models of manhood reinforce power hierarchies and gender inequality. Compared with these frameworks, however, toxic masculinity as a concept has received relatively little systematic measurement. “For a long time, nobody was really measuring it,” says Steven Sanders, a psychology researcher at Oregon State University. In response, psychologists have begun trying to break the idea down into measurable components rather than treating it as a vague label.
In 2024, Sanders and his colleagues introduced a toxic masculinity scale based on 28 questions designed to assess hostile and harmful masculine attitudes among white male university students in the United States. Building on this work, Deborah Hill Cone, a doctoral researcher in psychology at the University of Auckland, and her colleagues took a broader approach. Their study, published in the journal Psychology of Men & Masculinities, examined a more diverse and representative sample of adult men in a Western society, aiming to capture a fuller picture of what toxic masculinity looks like in everyday life.
Hill Cone’s team identified eight key indicators of toxic masculinity among heterosexual adult men. These included negative attitudes toward sexual minorities, rigid views about gender roles, and the degree to which a person’s gender identity is central to their sense of self. The researchers also examined both hostile sexism—such as the belief that women try to gain power by manipulating men—and benevolent sexism, which frames women as needing male protection and care. Additional factors included opposition to domestic violence prevention efforts and beliefs that some social groups are inherently more deserving than others.
To explore these dimensions, the researchers analyzed data from the 2018–2019 New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study, one of the country’s largest and most comprehensive social surveys. The dataset included responses from nearly 50,000 individuals, more than 15,000 of whom identified as heterosexual men and had answered questions relevant to masculinity, gender identity, and social attitudes. Statements included prompts such as “being a man is an important part of how I see myself” and “some groups are inferior and should stay in their place.”
Using statistical modeling, the researchers found that male respondents clustered into five distinct groups. The most striking finding was that only the smallest group—about 3.2 percent of the men—fell into what the researchers described as the “hostile toxic” category. In contrast, the largest group, accounting for 35.4 percent of the sample, was labeled “atoxic,” meaning they showed low levels of hostility, sexism, and exclusionary beliefs. This distribution did not surprise Sanders. “On average, men aren’t monsters,” he notes.
Between these two extremes were several intermediate groups. Two of them showed moderate levels of toxic attitudes, differing mainly in how tolerant they were toward sexual and gender minorities. Another group was described as “benevolent toxic,” consisting of men who scored relatively high on measures of sexism but did not display strong hostility or aggression. These men tended to endorse traditional gender roles and protective attitudes toward women without embracing overtly antagonistic views.
The study also explored which factors were associated with belonging to the hostile toxic group. Men in this category were more likely to be older, single, unemployed, religious, or from ethnic minority backgrounds. They also tended to score higher on measures of political conservatism, economic hardship, and emotional instability, and were more likely to have lower levels of formal education. This profile challenges common stereotypes about who embodies toxic masculinity.
“The image of the entitled, wealthy tech bro or fraternity guy didn’t really show up,” Hill Cone explains. Instead, the most hostile group consisted largely of men facing social and economic marginalization. “These are men with fewer resources and fewer opportunities, not men driving luxury cars,” she says. The findings suggest that structural disadvantage and social exclusion may play a significant role in the development of hostile attitudes.
One of the study’s most important conclusions is that identifying strongly with being a man did not, on its own, predict toxic behavior. While men in the hostile toxic group did tend to say that their gender was central to their identity, so did many men in other, far less problematic categories. In other words, feeling “manly” was not inherently linked to harmful views. “Masculine men are not automatically toxic,” Hill Cone emphasizes. “There is such a thing as positive masculinity.”
Experts unaffiliated with the study have generally praised its design and scope. Ryon McDermott, a psychologist at the University of South Alabama, describes the research as large, thoughtful, and methodologically strong. However, he cautions that the findings are based on data from a single country. The way men cluster into these five groups in New Zealand may not look exactly the same in other cultural contexts.
Michael Flood, a researcher specializing in men, masculinities, and violence prevention at Queensland University of Technology in Australia, argues that studies like this are still highly valuable. By identifying specific patterns and subgroups, researchers and policymakers can design more targeted interventions that address harmful forms of masculinity without stigmatizing all men. Flood stresses that any such efforts must be sensitive to cultural differences and local social conditions.
Even so, McDermott notes that the overall conclusion aligns with previous research. Across many studies, only a relatively small proportion of men consistently endorse the most extreme and damaging aspects of masculinity. The majority hold more moderate or flexible views, even if they value traditionally masculine traits.
Understanding toxic masculinity remains important precisely because it allows researchers to distinguish between traits that can be healthy in moderation and those that become harmful when taken to extremes. Qualities like competitiveness, assertiveness, or a desire for status are not inherently negative, McDermott explains. They can be beneficial for people of any gender when balanced with empathy, cooperation, and emotional awareness.
Problems arise when individuals adopt rigid and uncompromising ideas about gender and feel forced to live up to them at all costs. Men who believe they must never show vulnerability, express sadness, or seek help may turn to unhealthy coping mechanisms such as substance abuse. Research has repeatedly linked these pressures to higher rates of addiction, emotional distress, and suicide among men.
“If you’re a man and you believe that you can never act in ways labeled as feminine—like being emotionally open or asking for support—you’re setting yourself up for serious difficulties,” McDermott says. Studies like Hill Cone’s suggest that addressing toxic masculinity is less about condemning masculinity itself and more about promoting flexibility, balance, and healthier ways for men to understand who they are.
Leave a Reply