“Toxic Masculinity” is a buzzword widely used online that broadly captures troubling attitudes about masculinity that may be harmful to others. However, little actual psychological research has been conducted on it. This is a problem, since it leaves unclear what defines toxic masculinity and how common it is.

A new psychological study on toxic masculinity

A new study entitled “Are Men Toxic? A Person-Centered Investigation Into the Prevalence of Different Types of Masculinity in a Large Sample of New Zealand Men,” published in “Psychology of Men & Masculinities,” a scientific journal by the American Psychological Association APA, focused on toxic masculinity (Hill Cone and co-workers, 2026). In the study, the research team, led by scientist Deborah Hill Cone from the School of Psychology at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, analyzed data from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study. Overall, data from more than 15,000 male heterosexual volunteers aged between 18 and 99 years were included in the study. The volunteers included in the study had filled out various questionnaires, and the scientists concentrated on analyzing eight factors that could indicate problematic or toxic masculinity:

1. Gender identity centrality: This psychological construct measures how important it is for someone’s sense of self to be a man.
2. Sexual prejudice: This psychological construct measures negative thoughts about other people based on their sexual orientation.
3. Disagreeableness: A personality trait that includes being unpleasant and offensive to other people.
4. Narcissism: A personality trait that includes an increased sense of self-worth, often at the cost of other people.
5. Hostile sexism: Overtly negative attitudes towards women.
6. Benevolent sexism: Attitudes towards women that are not overtly hostile but still view them in a stereotypical way.
7. Opposition to domestic violence prevention initiatives: Being opposed to initiatives helping prevent violence towards women in relationships
8. Social dominance orientation: A preference against equality in social groups and for having a dominance hierarchy within groups.

Results of the study: Only about 11 percent of men show toxic masculinity

The scientists used advanced statistical modelling to identify subgroups of men characterized by distinct profiles across the eight toxic masculinity markers included in the study. These "latent profile analyses" revealed five distinct groups of men regarding toxic masculinity. The good news is that most men did not show toxic masculinity.

The largest group was called “Atoxics” (35.4 percent). These men showed low values across all eight indicators of toxic masculinity.

The second and third largest groups (27.2 percent and 26.6 percent of volunteers) both showed low to moderate values across the eight indicators of toxic masculinity.

Only the two smallest groups showed high levels of toxic masculinity. These included the “Benevolent Toxic” group (7.6 percent) that showed high values on benevolent sexism and sexual prejudice and moderate-to-high values on the other markers of toxic masculinity. The smallest group was the “Hostile Toxic” group (3.2 percent) that showed the highest values on hostile sexism, opposition to domestic violence prevention, disagreeableness, narcissism, and social dominance orientation.

Takeaway

Taken together, only 10.8 percent of the volunteers in this large study showed clear signs of toxic masculinity, while 89.2 percent did not. This finding indicates that the vast majority of men are not “toxic” and do not believe in destructive male attitudes. The study also showed that there seem to be two forms of toxic masculinity: the hostile and the benevolent. The scientists suggested that this finding should be kept in mind when developing measures to protect against toxic masculinity.

References

Hill Cone, D., Lilly, K. J., Sibley, C. G., & Osborne, D. (2026). Are men toxic? A person-centered investigation into the prevalence of different types of masculinity in a large sample of New Zealand men. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 27(1), 106–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000547