Are Men Toxic? A Person-Centered Investigation Into the Prevalence of Different Types of Masculinity in a Large Sample of New Zealand Men
This month we talked to Dr. Deborah Hill Cone about her views on “Toxic Masculinity” and how in her paper in Psychology of Men & Masculinities she wants to tackle the prevalence of the term. Specifically focusing on the integration of the psychological prejudices and behaviors it denotes. She took a sample of men from New Zealand and looked for tendencies more commonly associated with toxic masculinity, such as narcissism or benevolent sexism. In this post we will dive into what questions she wanted to answer with this article and the conclusions she came to at the end.
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
Photo by: www.kaboompics.com on Pexels
What were the key questions you were addressing in this article?
How prevalent is “toxic masculinity”? And what kind of men endorse these attitudes? In a day to day sense, should we stop using that term in such a sloppy way?
What were the main conclusions of your article?
Only a small minority (3.2%) of men hold classically “toxic” views, characterised by the group of indicators we used, which included hostile sexism, sexual prejudice and social dominance orientation. Notably, men who did endorse the most toxic views were the most marginalised, characterised by higher levels of deprivation, lower levels of education and employment, more likely to be of minority ethnicity, as well as being more conservative and religious and less likely to have the support of a romantic partner. It was also striking that a strong masculine identity was not a reliable indicator of toxicity.
What are the key implications of your article for research, policy, or practice?
Given that our largest subgroup (35.4% of our sample) expressed low levels of our indicators the article seems to have added a helpful perspective to the broader discourse about the nature of masculinity. In theoretical terms the article has aligned with work by Steve Sanders and his colleagues at Oregon State University to construct the first scale of Toxic Masculinity.
Where do you see this line of research heading in the future (i.e., what’s next?)
Our approach was cross-sectional so it would be valuable to test how attitudes have changed since we gathered our data.
How did you become interested in this line of inquiry?
Personally, it was because I have a teenage son and was curious about the way the term “toxic masculinity” was bandied around. My son didn’t seem toxic to me! I also felt bothered by some of the psychological discourse which seemed to make assumptions about men with problematic attitudes and wanted to know if those assumptions were correct.
Dr. Deborah Hill Cone
School of Psychology
University of Auckland
