HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
Psychol Men Masc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 January 19.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Psychol Men Masc. 2019 July ; 20(3): 277–287. doi:10.1037/men0000156.

Social Media Behavior, Toxic Masculinity, and Depression

Mike C. Parent,
Teresa D. Gobble,
Aaron Rochlen
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Texas at Austin
Author Manuscript

Abstract
Social media/social networks (SM/SNs), while ubiquitous in their use, have not been well
integrated into psychological theory or practice. Most research addressing SM/SNs has examined
frequency and modality of SM/SN use, rather than the valence of online interactions or potential
mental health consequences of use. Further, SM/SN use has also not been well integrated with
relevant paradigms from the psychology of men and masculinities paradigms. The present study
contributes to both of these research need areas by testing the associations among SM/SN use,
toxic masculinity, positive or negative SM/SN interactions, and depression among a sample of
402 men. Results of a structural equation modeling analysis indicated that SM/SN use and
toxic masculinity were associated with depression. Positive and negative SM/SN interactions
mediated the relationship between SM/SN use and depression indicators, and negative SM/SN
interactions mediated the relationship between toxic masculinity and depression. Implications for
Author Manuscript

future research directions and for working with men who use SM/SNs are discussed.

Keywords
toxic masculinity; social media; depression

Social media/social network (SM/SN) use is increasingly a predominant means of

communication and interaction. Facebook, for example, is used by 68% of adults in the
United States for information seeking and social exchange (Greenwood, Perrin, & Duggan,
2016), including communicating with other users, maintaining relationships, and exchanging
news (Gottfried & Shearer, 2016; Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2012). Youtube has more than
one billion users, and 80% of adults aged 18–49 watch Youtube at least once a month
Author Manuscript

(Donchev, 2016). Reddit, a forum site with subforums devoted to thousands of topics,
has an estimated 16 million users in the United States (Barthel, Stocking, Holcomb, &
Mitchell, 2010). Instagram, used to post photos and videos, is used by 32% of online adults
in the United States (Greenwood et al., 2016). The ubiquity of SM/SNs to modern life
and their integration with an enormous range of human behaviors speaks to the need to
better integrate SM/SN use with theories of human behavior. Specific domains of SM/SN
use may be especially relevant to men. Online interactions may be a fertile ground for

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mike C. Parent, Department of Educational Psychology, University of
Texas at Austin, 1912 Speedway, Stop D5000, Austin, TX 78712. [email protected].
 Parent et al. Page 2

the enactment of toxic masculinity due to the anonymity, asynchronous interaction, and
Author Manuscript

impersonal interactions that characterize SM/SN use. The present study sought to explore
relations among SM/SN use, toxic masculinity, and depression.

SM/SN Use and Depression

There is a growing body of research exploring the relationship between Internet use
in general, and SM/SN use in particular, and depression. However, explorations of the
relationship between Internet use and depression have yielded mixed results. One study
examined rates of depression among 312 Internet users seeking help for Internet addiction.
Depression was higher among those seeking information about Internet addiction, compared
with norms for the depression measure (Young & Rogers, 1998). In another study of 1,319
residents of the United Kingdom between the ages of 16 and 59, individuals who were heavy
Internet users reported more symptoms of depression (d = 1.92) compared with matched
Author Manuscript

nonheavy users (Morrison & Gore, 2010). At the same time, other studies have found
no relationship between Internet use and depression symptoms (Sanders, Field, Diego, &
Kaplan, 2000).

Regarding use of SM/SNs in particular, several studies have reported a positive association
between SM/SN use and depression. One investigation of SM/SN use and depression among
a sample of 1,787 U.S. adults compared those within the highest and lowest quartiles of
SM/SN use (defined as self-reported minutes on SM/SN sites per day). Participants in
the highest quartile had increased odds of having depression (adjusted odds ratio = 1.66)
compared with those in the lowest quartile of SM/SN use (Lin et al., 2016). However, as
with general Internet use, findings of a link between SM/SN use and depression are not
consistently supported. A study on SM/SN use and depression among 200 Filipino young
Author Manuscript

adults found no link between SM/SN use and depression (r = .04; Datu, Valdez, & Datu,
2012).

The mixed findings on the association between Internet use, or SM/SN use, and depression
have prompted the undertaking of more nuanced examinations of depression and SM/SN
use. One study of U.S. college students examined depression and SM/SN use by assessing
whether individuals who experience a feeling of subordination in response to viewing
SM/SN posts from others (called “Facebook envy”) had higher rates of depression.
Facebook envy was hypothesized to arise from viewing others’ posts and photos and
comparing idealized portrayals of friends’ lives to one’s own, resulting in a sense of
inferiority. This study found no direct relationship between SM/SN use frequency and
depression (r = .01). However, Facebook envy did mediate the relationship between SM/SN
use frequency and depression. In addition, both the relationships from Facebook use to
Author Manuscript

Facebook envy, and from Facebook envy to depression, were positive (Tandoc, Ferrucci, &
Duffy, 2015).

Another study assessed the sense of loss of control over SM/SN use, dubbed “Facebook
intrusion,” among a sample of 672 Polish Facebook users. Facebook intrusion was
operationalized as problematic engagement in Facebook that disrupted daily activities and
relationships. There was a positive association between self-reported time spent using the

Psychol Men Masc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 January 19.
 Parent et al. Page 3

Internet and Facebook intrusion (r = .24), and Facebook intrusion was positively associated
Author Manuscript

with symptoms of depression (r = .24). Men were more likely than women to experience
Facebook intrusion (effect sizes not reported). However, there was no direct relationship
between time on the Internet in general and depression (r = .08), suggesting that the affective
valance of SM/SN behaviors influences the relationship between frequency of daily Internet
use and depression (Błachnio, Przepiórka, & Pantic, 2015).

Based on these findings, we hypothesized that the manner in which one engages with
SM/SN would mediate the relationship between SM/SN use frequency and depression. Two
paradigms that may be relevant to understanding the relationship between SM/SN use and
depression are toxic masculinity and affect-biased attention.

Toxic Masculinity
Author Manuscript

Hegemonic masculinity is a manifestation of masculinities that is characterized by the

enforcement of restrictions in behavior based on gender roles that serves to reinforce
existing power structures that favor the dominance of men (Connell & Messerschmidt,
2005; Courtenay, 2000). A subset of hegemonic masculinity is toxic masculinity. Similar
to hegemonic masculinity, toxic masculinity is characterized by the enforcement of rigid
gender roles, but also involves the “need to aggressively compete [with others] and
dominate others” (Kupers, 2005, p. 713). Although toxic masculinity has been the subject of
considerable theoretical work, quantitative studies in this area have been limited. Arguably,
toxic masculinity has been insufficiently integrated into models of behaviors related to
health.

Toxic masculinity is characterized by a drive to dominate and by endorsement of

misogynistic and homophobic views. A large body of literature has linked endorsement
Author Manuscript

of misogynistic and homophobic attitudes with scores on measures of masculinity ideology

and adherence to masculine gender role conformity (Parent & Moradi, 2011; Wade &
Brittan-Powell, 2001). However, limited tools exist with which to measure toxic masculinity.
Nevertheless, some aspects of masculinities assessed with existing measures map onto the
concept of toxic masculinity. In particular, during the development of the Conformity to
Masculine Norms Inventory–46 (CMNI-46), the subscales Winning, Power Over Women,
and Heterosexual Self-Presentation, as a set, displayed higher subscale intercorrelations than
other pairs of subscales (Parent & Moradi, 2009). This finding has been replicated in other
samples of men (Iwamoto, Corbin, Lejuez, & MacPherson, 2014; Parent, Moradi, Rummell,
& Tokar, 2011; Parent, Torrey, & Michaels, 2012; Wong, Owen, & Shea, 2012). Parent and
Moradi (2011) posited that this triad of aspects of masculinities are united in their emphasis
on dominance over others—a particularly harmful aspect of hegemonic masculinity and the
Author Manuscript

basis of toxic masculinity.

Online interactions are a potential fertile ground for the proliferation of toxic masculinity.
Many online environments are anonymous, with user names taking the place of actual names
and users themselves being generally unidentifiable (Christopherson, 2007; Santana, 2014).
Even when online interactions are not anonymous, such as on Facebook, asynchronous
and non-face-to-face interactions may be more disinhibited, more volatile, and more prone

Psychol Men Masc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 January 19.
 Parent et al. Page 4

to toxicity than live, in-person communication (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012). Such
Author Manuscript

disinhibition toward negative interactions may be further exacerbated by the accessibility

of a wide range of online opinions and the ease with which one may be exposed to opposing
opinions. For example: Were an individual to be anti-feminist, enacting those attitudes in
person would require finding a feminist group, being available during the time it meets to
travel to it, and directly interacting negatively with members of the group.

Online, groups with which one disagrees are readily available. Some persons may easily
seek out such material to engage with, or “troll,” an individual for expressing opinions
contrary to their own (Buckels, Trapnell, & Paulhus, 2014; Herring, Job-Sluder, Scheckler,
& Barab, 2002). Even if one does not seek out material with which one disagrees, such
material could easily be encountered online. Adherence to toxic masculinity may promote
engagement with, and dwelling upon, such negative interactions, as one component of
toxic masculinity is a need to dominate interactions. Such negative interactions constitute
Author Manuscript

a form of affect-based attention, and may promote the occurrence of depressive symptoms
(Robinson & Alloy, 2003).

Affect-Biased Attention in Emotion Regulation

Cognitive–behavioral therapies have increasingly framed emotion regulation as a key
component to handling stressful moments (Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010;
Berking et al., 2011). Within such frameworks an important aspect of emotional regulation
is affect-biased attention, a process by which “sensory systems are tuned to favor certain
categories of affectively salient stimuli before they are encountered” (Todd, Cunningham,
Anderson, & Thompson, 2012, p. 365). That is, individuals may be attuned to, initially
attend to, and maintain attention to, stimuli that elicit a specific emotional response. Affect-
Author Manuscript

biased attention promotes the maintenance of maladaptive behaviors and cognitions by

attuning one to stimuli in the environment that would support the bias. This attunement
promotes attentional tracking toward objects known to cause extreme affect, for example,
hypervigilance in posttraumatic stress disorder, or anticipatory fear of contact with a
particular stimulus in specific phobias.

Morales, Fu, and Pérez-Edgar (2016) proposed a developmental neuroscience model to

explain the basis of affect-biased attention. This model focuses on the development of affect-
biased attention as a response to threats or rewards. In the context of toxic masculinity,
a pervasive need to dominate and control may promote negative engagement with online
materials (e.g., reading, responding to, and ruminating over SM/SN content with which
one disagrees); successfully enacting toxic masculinity, then, may result in greater negative
affect-biased attention, greater negative interactions online, and, ultimately, greater mood
Author Manuscript

disturbances for men. Indeed, in an eye-tracking study of 57 depressed adults, participants

who spent more time visually attending to negative words showed worse symptoms of
depression during a 5-week longitudinal study (Disner, Shumake, & Beevers, 2017). Toxic
masculinity, due to a focus on dominance, may promote attending to material with which
one disagrees. As such, we expect a positive association between toxic masculinity and
negative online interactions.

Psychol Men Masc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 January 19.
 Parent et al. Page 5

Pursuant to the present study, affect-biased cognitions may mediate the relationship between
Author Manuscript

SM/SN use and depression. In particular, individuals may encounter both positive and
negative material in various online contexts. Greater attending to negative material (e.g.,
seeking out material that one will find aggravating or ruminating about a negative interaction
online) may be associated with greater levels of distress. At the same time, bias toward
positive interactions (e.g., actively seeking out affirming material or reminding oneself of a
positive interaction online) may help to buffer against negative emotions. Thus, time spent
online may not be an adequate means by which to assess quality of SM/SN interactions.
Rather, engagement in self-enhancing SM/SN use (e.g., seeking out supportive interactions)
may be associated with lower levels of psychological distress. In contrast, engagement in
antagonistic or confrontational SM/SN use (e.g., seeking out confrontation and discord) may
be associated with higher levels of psychological distress.

Some aspects of masculinities may also influence engagement in greater attending to

Author Manuscript

negative material online. Although no research has explored the relationship between
masculinities and negative interactions online, there is evidence that adherence to masculine
gender roles is associated with more hostile or antagonistic interpersonal attitudes toward
others, particularly women (Gallagher & Parrott, 2011; Murnen, Wright, & Kaluzny, 2002).
Subsequently, it is probable that specific aspects of masculine gender role conformity are
associated with greater proclivity toward interpersonal hostility. One such aspect may be
toxic masculinity.

Masculinity and Depression

Endorsement of traditional masculine norms and depression have been associated positively
in myriad studies (Nadeau, Balsan, & Rochlen, 2016; Rice, Fallon, Aucote, & Möller-
Author Manuscript

Leimkühler, 2013; Rice, Fallon, & Bambling, 2011). However, many investigations of
the link between masculinity and depression have focused on examining masculinity
broadly, rather than examining theoretically relevant, specific aspects of masculinity. This
is inconsistent with more nuanced assessments of masculinity as composed of multiple
components. Toxic masculinity is one such form of expression of masculinity, and focuses
on a drive to win, homophobia, and misogyny. Adherence to this constellation of masculine
norms may increase the frequency or intensity of maladaptive or hostile behaviors, and
ultimately men’s experiences of depression. For example, in previous studies, scores on the
CMNI-46 Winning subscale, which assesses a need to succeed and dominate, have been
associated with a variety of negative outcomes, including depression (Wong, Ho, Wang,
& Miller, 2017). Scores on the CMNI-46 Heterosexual Self-Presentations subscale, which
assesses a desire to present oneself as heterosexual, have been associated with homophobia,
Author Manuscript

restricted affect, and restriction of expression of friendship between men (Parent & Moradi,
2011; Rankin, 2013). Scores on the CMNI-46 Power Over Women subscale, which assesses
a desire to maintain patriarchal power structures within one’s own life, have been associated
with perpetrating unwanted sexual advances (Kupers, 2005; Mikorski & Szymanski, 2017).
The relationship between masculinity and depression may be particularly relevant when
applied to masculine variations of depression symptoms.

Psychol Men Masc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 January 19.
 Parent et al. Page 6

Masculine variations of typical presentations of depression have been termed masculine

Author Manuscript

depression. Masculine depression is characterized by pressures felt by men to limit

certain emotional expressions. Expressions of vulnerability and introspection are avoided
to adhere more closely to masculine norms (Magovcevic & Addis, 2008). The restriction
of the expression of depression to stay within the confines of masculine norms can result
in deviation from symptoms of prototypic depression (e.g., tearfulness, sadness). Such
deviations may be internalizing or externalizing, with externalizing symptoms including
behaviors such as outbursts of anger, increases in substance use, and isolation, whereas
internalizing symptoms might include feeling numbness, feeling as though one is a failure,
or reporting somatic symptoms (Magovcevic & Addis, 2008). Because endorsement of toxic
masculinity norms may also be linked to emotional inhibition, assessment of masculine
depression as well as traditional expressions of depression is important to capture the range
of potential consequences of toxic masculinity and online behaviors. Men who endorse toxic
Author Manuscript

masculinity may seek out negative interactions online, driven by affect-biased attention.
Such exposure to negative online interactions may, in turn, encourage the development of
both traditional and masculine forms of depression.

The Present Study

The aim of the present study was to undertake an initial exploration of the relations among
SM/SN use, toxic masculinity, and depression among men. The theoretical model was
primarily informed by research on affect-biased attention and toxic masculinity. Work on
affect-biased attention and depression suggests that the relationship between SM/SN use
and depression would be mediated by the valence of interactions online, such that positive
interactions would be associated with lower depression and negative interactions would be
associated with higher depression. Work on toxic masculinity would suggest that higher
Author Manuscript

levels of toxic masculinity would be associated with greater levels of negative interactions
online, which in turn would be associated with higher levels of depression. Figure 1 presents
the hypothesized and tested direct relationships. Specifically, we anticipated the following
hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Time spent on SM/SNs would be associated positively with positive

and negative online behaviors.

Hypothesis 2: Toxic masculinity would be associated positively with negative online

behaviors.

Hypothesis 3: Positive online behaviors would be associated negatively with typical

and masculine depression.
Author Manuscript

Hypothesis 4: Negative online behaviors would be associated positively with typical

and masculine depression.

Hypothesis 5: Positive and negative online behaviors would mediate the relationships
between time spent on SM/SNs, and typical and masculine depression.

Psychol Men Masc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 January 19.
 Parent et al. Page 7

Method
Author Manuscript

Participants
Participants were recruited via Mturk, a resource for crowd-sourced task completion. Mturk
contains numerous opportunities for paid task completion and is a commonly used source
of data for research (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). Mturk workers complete
tasks online, including marketing surveys, research, or text or image evaluation, and are
compensated for completed tasks. Although some concerns have been raised about issues
such as participant attentiveness during task completion, these concerns can be minimized
through the use of attention check items, restriction of access to the task to individuals in
the United States, and setting a high threshold for Mturk worker’s previous task completions
(Goodman, Cryder, & Cheema, 2013; Ipeirotis, Provost, & Wang, 2010; Rouse, 2015), all of
which were undertaken in this study.
Author Manuscript

Participants were a sample of 402 men who ranged in age from 18 to 74 (M = 33.36, SD
= 10.98). Participants identified as White (71%), Asian American (10%), Hispanic/Latino
(8%), Black or African American (6%), multiracial (4%), Native American (1%), or another
identity (<1%). Most participants identified as heterosexual (89%), gay (5%), bisexual
(4%), or another identity (<1%). On a 101-point Subjective Socioeconomic Status scale,
participants rated themselves on average 44.90 (SD = 19.44; range = 0–93).

Measures
Toxic masculinity.—Toxic masculinity was assessed using three subscales of the
CMNI-46 (Parent & Moradi, 2011) that reflect the core aspects of toxic masculinity: sexism,
heterosexism, and competitiveness. These subscales were Winning (six items; sample item:
“In general, I will do anything to win”), Heterosexual Self-Presentation (six items; sample
Author Manuscript

item: “I would be furious if someone thought I was gay”), and Power Over Women (four
items; sample item: “In general, I control the women in my life”). Responses were made on
a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Validity of the three
subscales has been demonstrated through correlations with relevant constructs. For example,
in previous research using samples of U.S. college men, the Winning subscale demonstrated
positive correlations with measures of masculinity as agency (Bogaert & McCreary, 2011;
Parent & Moradi, 2011); the Heterosexual Self-Presentation subscale demonstrated positive
correlations with measures of homophobia (Keiller, 2010; Parent et al., 2011); and the
Power Over Women subscale demonstrated positive correlation with measures of sexism
(Levant, Rankin, Williams, Hasan, & Smalley, 2010; Parent et al., 2011). In the present
study, Cronbach’s αs for responses to items on each of the subscales were .78 for Winning,
.90 for Heterosexual Self-Presentation, and .81 for Power Over Women.
Author Manuscript

Affect-biased attention in online interactions.—Because no measures exist to assess

affect-biased attention in online interactions, we developed a short assessment of positive
and negative online behaviors. Positive and negative behaviors were each assessed with
four items pertaining specifically to SM/SN use (Item stem: “How often do you …”;
Item: “See and read [positive/negative] comments posted in response to things you post
online?”; “Respond to [positive/negative] comments posted in response to things you post

Psychol Men Masc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 January 19.
 Parent et al. Page 8

online?”; “Think about [positive/negative] things people have said to you online, after you
Author Manuscript

go offline?”; and “Watch videos or listen to audio shows about topics you [like and agree
with/don’t like and disagree with]”?). Responses were made on a 5-point scale, ranging from
1 (never) to 5 (very often). We verified the intended factor structure using a principal axis
factor analysis, using direct oblimin rotation. The scree plot suggested two factors, and all
items loaded primarily onto their intended factor (i.e., all positive-valence items onto one
factor, and all negative-valence items onto the other). Cronbach’s αs for responses to the
positive and negative item sets were .78 and .77, respectively.

Depression symptoms.—The Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9; Kroenke,

Spitzer, & Williams, 2001) was used to assess depressive symptoms (sample item: “Poor
appetite or overeating”). Responses were made reflecting the past 2 weeks for the
respondent, on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (almost every day). In
previous research using samples of college students, adolescents, adult populations, and
Author Manuscript

participants seeking mental health services, the PHQ-9 demonstrated validity via positive
correlations with established depression screening tools and clinical interviews (Gilbody,
Richards, Brealey, & Hewitt, 2007; Kroenke et al., 2001; Martin, Rief, Klaiberg, & Braehler,
2006). In the current study, the Cronbach’s α for responses to items on the PHQ-9 was .91.

Internalizing and externalizing masculine depression.—The Masculine Depression

Scale (MDS; Magovcevic & Addis, 2008) was used to measure internalizing cognitions and
symptoms, and externalizing behaviors, characteristic of masculine depression. The 44-item
scale (sample item: “I’ve felt trapped.”) measures occurrence of symptoms during a 2-week
period. Responses were made on a 4-point response scale, ranging from 1 (none or little of
the time) to 4 (all of the time). In previous research using a sample collected from Mturk,
total scale scores on the MDS were correlated with scores on measures of depression and
Author Manuscript

masculine gender role conformity (Nadeau et al., 2016). In this study, the Cronbach’s α was
.87 for the MDS-Externalizing scale, and .97 for the MDS-Internalizing scale.

Procedure
This study was approved by the institutional review board at the first author’s institution.
Participants were recruited via Mturk. Mturk participants were eligible to participate if they
identified as male in their Mturk profile, were located in the United States, and had a
previous Mturk task approval rating of at least 95%. All measures were completed online.
The survey contained two validity check items (e.g., “Please check strongly disagree”);
participants who failed the validity check items were removed from the data set before
analyses and are not included in any reporting in the present study. Participants were
compensated with $1.50 to their Mturk accounts.
Author Manuscript

Results
Data Analysis
Data were inspected for univariate and multivariate normality. All variables used in the
structural equation modeling analysis met guidelines for univariate normality (Tabachnick
& Fidell, 2007); highest skew = 1.48, highest kurtosis = 1.84. To assess multivariate

Psychol Men Masc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 January 19.
 Parent et al. Page 9

normality, we used DeCarlo’s implementation of Mardia’s test (DeCarlo, 1997). This

Author Manuscript

test was significant, and five participants were identified as multivariate outliers with
Mahalanobis distances significant at p < .001. Removing these five participants had no
effect on the results of the analysis. Subsequently, their responses were retained in the data
set, and maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors was used to estimate
the model. Missing data were minimal; a total of seven data points of 10,050 were missing,
representing a missing data rate of 0.07%. We used full information maximum likelihood
estimation in Mplus to handle missing data in the structural equation modeling and available
item analysis (Parent, 2013) to handle missing data in the calculation of descriptive statistics
and Cronbach’s α coefficients.

Primary Analyses
Table 1 displays the correlations among the variables, means, and standard deviations.
Author Manuscript

Most correlations fell within the moderate range (i.e., near .30). Higher correlations were
present for the associations between the three depression indices, consistent with those three
measures assessing different aspects of depression. Before conducting the primary analysis
in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2012), we constructed item parcels using methods consistent
with recommended practices (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). Specifically,
for hegemonic masculinity, we used mean scores on the three CMNI-46 subscales as
indicators of the latent variable. For positive and negative interactions, we used all four
individual items for each of the two latent variables as indicators of the latent variables. For
the PHQ-9 and the two subscales of the MDS, we entered all items into individual principal
axis factoring factor analyses, constraining the solution to one factor. We examined factor
loading values, and assigned items to parcels in countervailing order.

Primary analyses were run using Mplus. We assessed fit using the confirmatory fit index
Author Manuscript

(CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root-mean-
square residual (SRMR). Adequate fit would be indicated by CFI > .90, RMSEA < .10, and
SRMR < .10, and good fit by CFI > .95, RMSEA < .06, and SRMR < .08 (Weston & Gore,
2006). First, we assessed the measurement model, which fit the data very well; χ2(170) =
354.73, p < .001; CFI = .96; RMSEA = 0.05, 0.04, 0.06; SRMR = 0.05. All latent variable
indicators loaded onto their intended latent variables at p < .001. Most of the covariances
in the measurement model were significant at p < .001. Exceptions were the covariances
between: positive interactions and depression as assessed with the PHQ-9 (p = .73), toxic
masculinity and depression as assessed by the PHQ-9 (p = .12), and positive interactions and
externalizing masculine depression (p = .62).

Next, we tested the structural model. This model also demonstrated good fit; χ2(173) =
Author Manuscript

380.82, p < .001; CFI = .96; RMSEA = 0.06, 0.05, 0.06; SRMR = 0.05. Direct path
coefficients are displayed in Figure 1. Time spent on SM/SNs was associated positively
with positive and negative online behaviors, supporting Hypothesis 1. Toxic masculinity
was associated positively with negative online behaviors, consistent with Hypothesis 2.
Positive online behaviors were associated negatively with typical and masculine depression,
consistent with Hypothesis 3, and negative online behaviors were associated positively with
typical and masculine depression, consistent with Hypothesis 4. Table 2 displays indirect

Psychol Men Masc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 January 19.
 Parent et al. Page 10

paths from hours of SM/SN use to each of the three dependent variables; all indirect paths
Author Manuscript

were significant, indicating that all posited mediation hypotheses were supported, consistent
with Hypothesis 5. R2 values were .14 for masculine externalizing depression, .27 for
masculine internalizing depression, and .09 for depression as assessed with the PHQ-9.

Discussion
The findings of the present study extend research on men’s SM/SN use, toxic masculinity,
and depression. Relationships between SM/SN use and toxic masculinity to depression, via
quality of SM/SN interactions, were consistent with theories of affect-biased attention and
toxic masculinity as applied to models of depression. Overall, the results emphasized the
mediating roles of positive and negative SM/SN interactions in the relations between SM/SN
use/toxic masculinity and depressive symptoms. These findings, outlined in the following
text, can be used to advance research and practice with men in the digital age.
Author Manuscript

First, consistent with some of the past research on SM/SN use, more frequent SM/SN use
was associated with higher levels of depression. In addition, SM/SN use was associated
directly with traditional depression and masculine externalizing depression, and indirectly
associated with both of those forms of depression and masculine internalizing depression
via positive and negative interactions on SM/SN sites. Regarding the indirect relations, more
frequent SM/SN use was indirectly associated with all three indicators of depression via
negative and positive online interactions (i.e., the affect-biased attention measures mediated
the relationship between SM/SN use and depression). The affect-biased attention variables
mediated the SM/SN use/depression relationships in different directions, such that positive
online behaviors appeared to buffer the relationship, whereas negative online behaviors
exacerbated it. These results suggest that simple evaluation of time spent on SM/SN sites,
Author Manuscript

without assessment of the valence of interactions, is likely insufficient to understand the role
SM/SN use has in men’s mood disturbances. Rather, it appears important to understand the
ways in which men interact online.

As anticipated, toxic masculinity was directly associated with affect-biased attention, here
defined as negative online behaviors. That is, men who more strongly endorsed the
dominance–heterosexism–misogyny triad of aspects of conformity to masculine norms
were more likely to report negative online interactions. This finding is consistent with
past research and theoretical work on toxic masculinity that suggests that adherence
to traditional masculinity is associated with maladaptive communication and interaction
styles (Burn & Ward, 2005; Coughlin & Wade, 2012; Jakupcak, Lisak, & Roemer, 2002;
Rochlen, McKelley, Suizzo, & Scaringi, 2008). The relation between toxic masculinity
and affect-biased attention is one of the most notable aspects of this study. In essence,
Author Manuscript

this finding suggests that men who adhere to toxic masculinity may engage in reliably
more negative SM/SN behaviors. For example, toxic masculinity may be associated with
increased propensity to seek out and read content with which one disagrees, ruminate
about disagreements or arguments on SM/SN sites, or make hostile responses to such
disagreements. Toxic masculinity is characterized by a need to dominate, antifemininity,
and homophobia (Kupers, 2005, 2010; Lorde, 1984; Parent & Moradi, 2011), which were
three aspects of masculinity assessed in the present study. It is possible that these three

Psychol Men Masc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 January 19.
 Parent et al. Page 11

aspects of masculinity interact in online SM/SN behavior to engender mood disturbances.

Author Manuscript

SM/SN sites are often an outlet for expressing political or ideological positions (Kushin
& Yamamoto, 2010; Rainie, Smith, Schlozman, Brady, & Verba, 2012; Shah et al., 2012),
sometimes anonymously, generating a limitless stream of stimuli for affect-biased attention
to fixate on. A position of antifeminism and homophobia, combined with a hyperfocus on a
need to dominate or win interactions, may promote engagement with SM/SN material with
which one disagrees, leading to negative SM/SN interactions (Herring et al., 2002; Shaw,
2014).

The indirect relationships from toxic masculinity to the three indicators of depression
were also significant, suggesting that negative online interactions mediate the relationship
between toxic masculinity and symptoms of depression. This finding is consistent with
previous research on affect-biased attention and depression, in that attunement to messages
perceived to be negative is associated with mood disturbance (Todd et al., 2012).
Author Manuscript

It is notable that negative online behaviors were associated uniquely and positively
with traditional depression, masculinized internalizing depression, and masculinizing
externalizing depression. This robust association suggests the need to further assess the
role of affect-biased attention in SM/SN involvement as it relates to mood disturbances.
In contrast, positive online behaviors, suggestive of a more adaptive affect-biased attention
attunement, were associated negatively with all three facets of depression assessed here.
This occurred despite the strong positive correlation between negative and positive online
behaviors, and suggests that the cultivation of a more positive affect-biased attention may
help individuals to reduce mood disturbances.

Implications for Practice

The present results also have tentative clinical implications. First, our hypothesis that toxic
Author Manuscript

masculinity would be associated with higher levels of depression via affect-biased attention
(i.e., negative online interactions) was supported. That is, men who more strongly endorse
the aspects of toxic masculinity assessed in this study may be more likely to engage with
and ruminate on negative interactions online, and may benefit from examination of the
purpose and implications of such behavior. Efforts have been made to address affect-biased
attention through clinical interventions for a range of topics, including anxiety, pain, obesity,
and substance use (Castellanos et al., 2009; McGeary, Meadows, Amir, & Gibb, 2014; Roy,
Dennis, & Warner, 2015). Such interventions have principally involved direct practice in
shifting attention away from stimuli seen as anxiety provoking, and has shown promise as a
novel behavioral treatment approach.

Yet, endorsement of masculine norms is associated with more negative attitudes toward
Author Manuscript

help seeking (Galdas, Cheater, & Marshall, 2005; Möller-Leimkühler, 2002; Shepherd
& Rickard, 2012), and as such men high in these norms would be unlikely to seek
psychological help for mood disturbances. It may be more effective to engage in outreach
either in person or via SM/SNs to address toxic masculinity in online contexts. On college
campuses, psychologists might work with student groups involved in either online activities
(e.g., gaming student groups) or political groups whose members may be active in online
forums. As well, SM/SNs themselves may be harnessed to conduct broad public health

Psychol Men Masc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 January 19.
 Parent et al. Page 12

interventions aimed to raise the level of online discourse and discourage negative rumination
Author Manuscript

over material viewed online, using models of successful online public health or awareness
interventions (Guo & Saxton, 2014; Obar, Zube, & Lampe, 2012).

Research on SM/SN interaction and depression has led to mixed results over numerous
studies. The present study suggests that quality of interactions rather than raw amount of
time on SM/SN sites is associated with depression among men. At the same time, our
findings are more nuanced with the moderate positive correlation that emerged between
positive and negative online interactions. Rather than individuals being divisible into groups
of those who primarily interact positively and those who react negatively online, there may
be underlying individual personality or circumstance characteristics that promote fixation
on online interactions, both positive and negative. Online interactions can be helpful to a
range of presenting concerns, including depression (Griffiths et al., 2012; Houston, Cooper,
& Ford, 2002), and simply recommending reduced SM/SN time may not be beneficial to
Author Manuscript

patients with depressive symptoms.

Recommendations that patients reduce SM/SN use are unlikely to be successful.

Terminating SM/SN use may be highly negatively reinforcing, as such disconnect may
inhibit the development and maintenance of real-world friendships (e.g., missing social
events that are posted on SM/SNs with the assumption that everyone who might be
interested is on a SM/SN site). Further, SM/SN sites do allow for unique social connections
and maintenance of relationships, for example, with distant relatives or geographically
dispersed friends (Coyne, Padilla-Walker, Day, Harper, & Stockdale, 2014; Dekker &
Engbersen, 2014; Shklovski, Barkhuus, Bornoe, & Kaye, 2015; Sosik & Bazarova, 2014).
Given the ubiquity of SM/SN sites in modern life, abstaining from their use may not be a
reasonable goal for most patients.
Author Manuscript

Given the integration of SM/SN use into everyday life, it may be reasonable to assess the
frequency and valence of SM/SN behaviors at intake with patients. SM/SN use can be
assessed as a source of support, connection, or personal development (e.g., using SM/SN
sites to maintain connections with family and friends, as a bridge to engage in real-world
activities with friends, or to learn about new topics). SM/SN use can also be assessed as a
source of negative interactions (e.g., regularly commenting negatively on others’ postings or
having one’s own postings be negatively commented upon, engaging in anonymous online
behavior that is antagonistic toward others, regularly choosing to view media that one finds
aggravating and frustrating). Modifications to SM/SN use can be implemented in the context
of empirically supported interventions. For example, if patients find that they engage in
rapid, angered responses to SM/SN posts with which they disagree, they might turn on a
Author Manuscript

mobile device in session, seek out such a post, and go over their reactions in real time with
the therapist (akin to an exposure and response prevention paradigm; Abramowitz, 1996).

In another circumstance, a patient may find themselves ruminating over online posts,
or being distracted from daily activities by mentally composing responses in their mind
while away from a computer. Such behaviors may be amenable to thought-stopping from
cognitive–behavioral intervention paradigms (Bakker, 2009), or mindfulness/present-focus
interventions from acceptance and commitment therapy (McCracken & Vowles, 2014). As

Psychol Men Masc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 January 19.
 Parent et al. Page 13

well, SM/SNs can be leveraged for social support (Merolli, Gray, & Martin-Sanchez, 2013;
Author Manuscript

Oh, Ozkaya, & LaRose, 2014), particularly among individuals who may have limited access
to real-world networks (e.g., rural men; Stern & Adams, 2010). Anonymity may also be
useful to reducing barriers to help seeking, such as in the use of anonymous support forums
for various issues (Powell, Inglis, Ronnie, & Large, 2011; Tsui, Cheung, & Leung, 2010).
Providers might encourage patients to leverage such positive aspects of SM/SN use to
bolster treatment.

Negative online interactions may also be incorporated into treatment planning. For example,
individuals who regularly engage in negative or antagonistic behaviors online could
explore the motivation for such behaviors from developmental, dynamic, or social learning
paradigms. Such behaviors could also be altered cognitively and behaviorally. For example,
if a patient regularly gets into heated discussions online (sometimes called “flame wars”)
over various issues, these could be addressed in a therapeutic setting. The nature of such
Author Manuscript

postings would allow for the patient to open their SM/SN program and view the material
that prompted their reaction in session, and process through how they reacted to it in the
moment rather than rely completely on recall and reconstruction of events. Individuals prone
to antagonistic interactions online may view stimuli that would provoke such reactions in
session, and use in-session opportunities to engage in response prevention and practice
emotional regulation.

Given the negative association between conformity to traditional masculinity and attitudes
toward psychological help seeking, men high in toxic masculinity are unlikely to present in
therapy (Berger, Levant, McMillan, Kelleher, & Sellers, 2005; Galdas et al., 2005; Hammer,
Vogel, & Heimerdinger-Edwards, 2013; Möller-Leimkühler, 2002; Vogel, Heimerdinger-
Edwards, Hammer, & Hubbard, 2011). However, patients who endorse toxic masculinity
Author Manuscript

and high levels of SM/SN use may also be encouraged to explore their motivations for
maladaptive SM/SN use and how such use may negatively influence them or others.
Consistent with modern approaches to treating affect-biased attention, patients may be
helped to learn to intentionally alter their attentional focus. As well, mental energy and time
devoted to antagonistic or aggressive online behaviors might be worked on in therapy to be
funneled toward more adaptive or growth-oriented outlets (Jennings & Apsche, 2014).

Limitations and Future Directions

The results of the present study must be interpreted in light of its limitations. First, the
data are cross-sectional and thus causality cannot be inferred. There are likely reciprocal
relationships present among these variables. For example, externalizing depression may be
linked to greater propensity to seek out and respond to aggravating material on SM/SN
Author Manuscript

sites. Longitudinal and experimental research could be used to further explore causality
among the variables in the study. Second, we used data collected online from Mturk.
Although this allows us to avoid concerns that may be raised with convenience samples of
undergraduate men, sampling from Mturk does have limitations. Although extant research
on Mturk has suggested that with protocols such as those included in this study (e.g.,
restricting participation to people from the United States, including validity check items)
data integrity can be improved (Rouse, 2015), there is still a risk that participants are paying

Psychol Men Masc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 January 19.
 Parent et al. Page 14

minimal attention to items as they complete a study or are engaged in other behaviors (e.g.,
Author Manuscript

watching TV) while completing a study. Third, we assessed SM/SN involvement broadly.
We made this decision consciously, as SM/SN sites are broad interactive mediums and no
validated measures exist of nuanced interactions on SM/SN. Further, assessing the type of
social network used (e.g., Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, etc.) may not itself be meaningful.
For example, some individuals may use Reddit’s active and often volatile political forums,
whereas others may use other forums dedicated to funny pictures, science, world news,
music, video games, or photographs of baby animals (all subforums with more than 10
million subscribers worldwide). Thus, the medium is not the manner in Internet interaction.
The present study would have been augmented by, and speaks to the need for, modern
measures of social interaction that address Internet and SM/SN behaviors. Fourth, we
relied on use of subscales of the CMNI-46 to assess toxic masculinity; the present study
speaks to the need to develop a dedicated measure of toxic masculinity. Finally, our broad
Author Manuscript

assessment of the affective bias in attention in SM/SN use also suggests the need for a
dedicated measure that more clearly delineates the use of SM/SN. For example, reactive
and hostile responding to online material may have different antecedents and consequences
than ruminating carefully for hours over a response. Further, affect-biased attention research
often includes behavioral components, such as eye movement tracking. Extension of the
current research to such methodologies could be informative. For example, research may
assess whether individuals who endorse toxic masculinity also attend visually to stimuli that
is perceived as a threat (e.g., to a fake SM/SN post with which they disagree, compared with
one with which they agree).

The current research suggests a host of potential future research endeavors. Research
on men’s online interactions, and the relationships between those behaviors and mental
and physical health, is lacking. Further research may explore differences among SM/SN
Author Manuscript

sites, such as relationships between toxic masculinity and interactions on anonymous

versus nonanonymous Internet sites, or how toxic masculinity relates to different forms
of negative interactions. For example, are individuals who endorse toxic masculinity more
likely to “invade” forums or sites with ideologies separate from their own and post
antagonistic content (what are called “raids” or “brigading”)? Are they more likely to
respond antagonistically to, rather than ignore, individuals intentionally trying to antagonize
others (i.e., “trolls”)? When others disagree with them online, are they more likely to engage
in heated and antagonistic discussions (“flame wars”)? Given the ubiquity of SM/SN in
everyday life, and the anonymity of SM/SN that provides fertile ground for the enactment
of toxic masculinity, further investigation of men’s online behaviors can be informative to
research, clinical work, and advocacy with men.
Author Manuscript

References
Abramowitz JS (1996). Variants of exposure and response prevention in the treatment of
obsessive-compulsive disorder: A meta-analysis. Behavior Therapy, 27, 583–600. 10.1016/
S0005-7894(96)80045-1
Aldao A, Nolen-Hoeksema S, & Schweizer S (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across
psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 217–237.
10.1016/)cpr.2009.11.004 [PubMed: 20015584]

Psychol Men Masc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 January 19.
 Parent et al. Page 15

Bakker GM (2009). In defence of thought stopping. Clinical Psychologist, 13, 59–68.

10.1080/13284200902810452
Author Manuscript

Barthel M, Stocking G, Holcomb J, & Mitchell A (2010). Nearly eight-in-ten Reddit users get
news on the site. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/
2292/8354
Berger JM, Levant RF, McMillan KK, Kelleher W, & Sellers A (2005). Impact of gender role conflict,
traditional masculinity ideology, alexithymia, and age on men’s attitudes toward psychological help
seeking. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 6, 73–78. 10.1037/1524-9220.6.1.73
Berking M, Margraf M, Ebert D, Wupperman P, Hofmann SG, & Junghanns K (2011). Deficits
in emotion-regulation skills predict alcohol use during and after cognitive-behavioral therapy
for alcohol dependence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 307–318. 10.1037/
a0023421 [PubMed: 21534653]
Błachnio A, Przepiórka A, & Pantic I (2015). Internet use, Facebook intrusion, and depression:
Results of a cross-sectional study. European Psychiatry: The Journal of the Association of European
Psychiatrists, 30, 681–684. 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2015.04.002 [PubMed: 25963476]
Bogaert AF, & McCreary DR (2011). Masculinity and the distortion of self-reported height in men.
Author Manuscript

Sex Roles, 65, 548–556. 10.1007/s11199-011-0003-8

Buckels EE, Trapnell PD, & Paulhus DL (2014). Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and
Individual Differences, 67, 97–102. 10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.016
Buhrmester M, Kwang T, & Gosling SD (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: A new source
of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.
10.1177/1745691610393980 [PubMed: 26162106]
Burn SM, & Ward AZ (2005). Men’s conformity to traditional masculinity and relationship
satisfaction. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 6, 254–263. 10.1037/1524-9220.6A254
Castellanos EH, Charboneau E, Dietrich MS, Park S, Bradley BP, Mogg K, & Cowan RL (2009).
Obese adults have visual attention bias for food cue images: Evidence for altered reward
system function. International Journal of Obesity, 33, 1063–1073. 10.1038/ijo.2009.138 [PubMed:
19621020]
Christopherson KM (2007). The positive and negative implications of anonymity in Internet social
interactions: “On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog. Computers in Human Behavior, 23,
3038–3056. 10.1016/j.chb.2006.09.001
Author Manuscript

Connell RW, & Messerschmidt JW (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender
and Society, 19, 829–859. 10.1177/0891243205278639
Coughlin P, & Wade JC (2012). Masculinity ideology, income disparity, and romantic relationship
quality among men with higher earning female partners. Sex Roles, 67, 311–322. 10.1007/
s11199-012-0187-6
Courtenay WH (2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men’s well-being:
A theory of gender and health. Social Science and Medicine, 50, 1385–1401. 10.1016/
S0277-9536(99)00390-1 [PubMed: 10741575]
Coyne SM, Padilla-Walker LM, Day RD, Harper J, & Stockdale L (2014). A friend request from
dear old dad: Associations between parent-child social networking and adolescent outcomes.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17, 8–13. 10.1089/cyber.2012.0623
[PubMed: 23845157]
Datu JAD, Valdez JP, & Datu N (2012). Does Facebooking make us sad? Hunting relationship between
Facebook use and depression among Filipino adolescents. International Journal of Research
Author Manuscript

Studies in Educational Technology, 1, 83–91. 10.5861/ijrset.2012.202

DeCarlo LT (1997). Mardia’s multivariate skew (b1p) and multivariate kurtosis (b2p). Retrieved from
http://www.columbia.edu/~ld208/Mardia.sps
Dekker R, & Engbersen G (2014). How social media transform migrant networks and facilitate
migration. Global Networks, 14, 401–418. 10.1111/glob12040
Disner SG, Shumake JD, & Beevers CG (2017). Self-referential schemas and attentional bias predict
severity and naturalistic course of depression symptoms. Cognition and Emotion, 31, 632–644.
10.1080/02699931.2016.1146123 [PubMed: 26901406]

Psychol Men Masc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 January 19.
 Parent et al. Page 16

Donchev D (2016, March 19). Youtube Statistics - 2017. Retrieved July 26, 2017, from https://
fortunelords.com/youtube-statistics/
Author Manuscript

Galdas PM, Cheater F, & Marshall P (2005). Men and health help-seeking behaviour: Literature
review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49, 616–623. 10.1111/j1365-2648200403331x [PubMed:
15737222]
Gallagher KE, & Parrott DJ (2011). What accounts for men’s hostile attitudes toward women? The
influence of hegemonic male role norms and masculine gender role stress. Violence Against
Women, 17, 568–583. 10.1177/1077801211407296 [PubMed: 21531691]
Gilbody S, Richards D, Brealey S, & Hewitt C (2007). Screening for depression in medical settings
with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ): A diagnostic meta-analysis. Journal of General
Internal Medicine, 22, 1596–1602. 10.1007/s11606-007-0333-y [PubMed: 17874169]
Goodman JK, Cryder CE, & Cheema A (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and
weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 213–224.
10.1002/bdm.1753
Gottfried J, & Shearer E (2016). News use across social media platforms 2016. Pew
Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-
Author Manuscript

media-platforms-2016/
Greenwood S, Perrin A, & Duggan M (2016). Social Media Update 2016. Retrieved from http://
www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/social-media-update-2016/
Griffiths KM, Mackinnon AJ, Crisp DA, Christensen H, Bennett K, & Farrer L (2012). The
effectiveness of an online support group for members of the community with depression: A
randomised controlled trial. PLoS ONE, 7, e53244. 10.1371/journal.pone.0053244 [PubMed:
23285271]
Guo C, & Saxton GD (2014). Tweeting social change: How social media are changing nonprofit
advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43, 57–79. 10.1177/0899764012471585
Hammer JH, Vogel DL, & Heimerdinger-Edwards SR (2013). Men’s help seeking: Examination of
differences across community size, education, and income. Psychology of Men and Masculinity,
14, 65–75. 10.1037/a0026813
Herring S, Job-Sluder K, Scheckler R, & Barab S (2002). Searching for safety online:
Managing “trolling” in a feminist forum. The Information Society, 18, 371–384.
10.1080/01972240290108186
Author Manuscript

Houston TK, Cooper LA, & Ford DE (2002). Internet support groups for depression: A 1-
year prospective cohort study. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 2062–2068. 10.1176/
appiajp15912.2062 [PubMed: 12450957]
Ipeirotis PG, Provost F, & Wang J (2010). Quality management on amazon mechanical turk. In
Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD workshop on human computation (pp. 64–67). New York, NY:
ACM.
Iwamoto DK, Corbin W, Lejuez C, & MacPherson L (2014). College men and alcohol use: Positive
alcohol expectancies as a mediator between distinct masculine norms and alcohol use. Psychology
of Men and Masculinity, 15, 29–39. 10.1037/a0031594 [PubMed: 25705133]
Jakupcak M, Lisak D, & Roemer L (2002). The role of masculine ideology and masculine gender
role stress in men’s perpetration of relationship violence. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 3,
97–106. 10.1037/1524-9220.3.2.97
Jennings JL, & Apsche JA (2014). The evolution of a fundamentally mindfulness-based treatment
methodology: From DBT and ACT to MDT and beyond. International Journal of Behavioral and
Author Manuscript

Consultation Therapy, 9, 1–3. 10.1037/h0100990

Keiller SW (2010). Masculine norms as correlates ofheterosexual men’s attitudes toward gay men and
lesbian women. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 11, 38–52. 10.1037/a0017540
Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, & Williams JB (2001). The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief
depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16, 606–613. 10.1046/
j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x [PubMed: 11556941]
Kupers TA (2005). Toxic masculinity as a barrier to mental health treatment in prison. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 61, 713–724. 10.1002/jclp.20105 [PubMed: 15732090]

Psychol Men Masc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 January 19.
 Parent et al. Page 17

Kupers TA (2010). Role of misogyny and homophobia in prison sexual abuse. UCLA Women’s Law
Journal, 18, 107–130.
Author Manuscript

Kushin MJ, & Yamamoto M (2010). Did social media really matter? College students’ use of online
media and political decision making in the 2008 election. Mass Communication and Society, 13,
608–630. 10.1080/15205436.2010.516863
Lapidot-Lefler N, & Barak A (2012). Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-
contact on toxic online disinhibition. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 434–443. 10.1016/
j.chb.2011.10.014
Levant RF, Rankin TJ, Williams CM, Hasan NT, & Smalley KB (2010). Evaluation of the factor
structure and construct validity of scores on the Male Role Norms Inventory–Revised (MRNI-R).
Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 11, 25–37. 10.1037/a0017637
Lin LY, Sidani JE, Shensa A, Radovic A, Miller E, Colditz JB, … Primack BA (2016). Association
between social media use and depression among U.S. young adults. Depression and Anxiety, 33,
323–331. 10.1002/da.22466 [PubMed: 26783723]
Little TD, Cunningham WA, Shahar G, & Widaman KF (2002). To parcel or not to parcel:
Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173. 10.1207/
Author Manuscript

S15328007SEM0902_1
Lorde A (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches by Audrey Lorde. Berkeley, CA: Crossing Press.
Magovcevic M, & Addis ME (2008). The Masculine Depression Scale: Development
and psychometric evaluation. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 9, 117–132.
10.1037/1524-9220.9.3.117
Martin A, Rief W, Klaiberg A, & Braehler E (2006). Validity of the Brief Patient Health Questionnaire
Mood Scale (PHQ-9) in the general population. General Hospital Psychiatry, 28, 71–77. 10.1016/
j.genhosppsych.2005.07.003 [PubMed: 16377369]
McCracken LM, & Vowles KE (2014). Acceptance and commitment therapy and mindfulness
for chronic pain: Model, process, and progress. American Psychologist, 69, 178–187. 10.1037/
a0035623 [PubMed: 24547803]
McGeary JE, Meadows SP, Amir N, & Gibb BE (2014). Computer-delivered, home-based, attentional
retraining reduces drinking behavior in heavy drinkers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28,
559–562. 10.1037/a0036086 [PubMed: 24955674]
Author Manuscript

Merolli M, Gray K, & Martin-Sanchez F (2013). Health outcomes and related effects of using social
media in chronic disease management: A literature review and analysis of affordances. Journal of
Biomedical Informatics, 46, 957–969. 10.1016/j.jbi.2013.04.010 [PubMed: 23702104]
Mikorski R, & Szymanski DM (2017). Masculine norms, peer group, pornography, Facebook, and
men’s sexual objectification of women. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 18, 257–267.
10.1037/men0000058
Möller-Leimkühler AM (2002). Barriers to help-seeking by men: A review of sociocultural and
clinical literature with particular reference to depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 71, 1–9.
10.1016/S0165-0327(01)00379-2 [PubMed: 12167495]
Morales S, Fu X, & Pérez-Edgar KE (2016). A developmental neuroscience perspective on affect-
biased attention. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 26–41. 10.1016/j.dcn.2016.08.001
[PubMed: 27606972]
Morrison CM, & Gore H (2010). The relationship between excessive Internet use and depression:
A questionnaire-based study of 1,319 young people and adults. Psychopathology, 43, 121–126.
10.1159/000277001 [PubMed: 20110764]
Author Manuscript

Murnen SK, Wright C, & Kaluzny G (2002). If “boys will be boys,” then girls will be victims? A
meta-analytic review of the research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex
Roles, 46, 359–375. 10.1023/A:1020488928736
Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (2012). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Nadeau MM, Balsan MJ, & Rochlen AB (2016). Men’s depression: Endorsed experiences and
expressions. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 17, 328–335. 10.1037/men0000027
Nadkarni A, & Hofmann SG (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and Individual
Differences, 52, 243–249. 10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.007 [PubMed: 22544987]

Psychol Men Masc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 January 19.
 Parent et al. Page 18

Obar JA, Zube P, & Lampe C (2012). Advocacy 2.0: An analysis of how advocacy groups in
the United States perceive and use social media as tools for facilitating civic engagement and
Author Manuscript

collective action. Journal of Information Policy, 2, 1–25. 10.5325/jinfopoli.2.2012.0001

Oh HJ, Ozkaya E, & LaRose R (2014). How does online social networking enhance life satisfaction?
The relationships among online supportive interaction, affect, perceived social support, sense
of community, and life satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 69–78. 10.1016/
j.chb.2013.07.053
Parent MC (2013). Handling item-level missing data: Simpler is just as good. The Counseling
Psychologist, 41, 568–600. 10.1177/0011000012445176
Parent MC, & Moradi B (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Conformity to Masculine Norms
Inventory and development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46. Psychology of
Men and Masculinity, 10, 175–189. 10.1037/a0015481
Parent MC, & Moradi B (2011). An abbreviated tool for assessing conformity to masculine norms:
Psychometric properties of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46. Psychology of Men
and Masculinity, 12, 339–353. 10.1037/a0021904
Parent MC, Moradi B, Rummell CM, & Tokar DM (2011). Evidence of construct distinctiveness
Author Manuscript

for conformity to masculine norms. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 12, 354–367. 10.1037/
a0023837
Parent MC, Torrey C, & Michaels MS (2012). “HIV testing is so gay”: The role of masculine gender
role conformity in HIV testing among men who have sex with men. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 59, 465–470. 10.1037/a0028067 [PubMed: 22774868]
Powell J, Inglis N, Ronnie J, & Large S (2011). The characteristics and motivations of online health
information seekers: Cross-sectional survey and qualitative interview study. Journal of Medical
Internet Research, 13, e20. 10.2196/jmir.1600 [PubMed: 21345783]
Rainie L, Smith A, Schlozman KL, Brady H, & Verba S (2012). Social media and
political engagement. Washington DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American
Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/2012/
PIP_SocialMediaAndPoliticalEngagement_PDF.pdf
Rankin Z (2013). Conformity to masculine norms, gender role conflict and relationship satisfaction in
inter-male friendships. Arcata, CA: Humboldt State University.
Rice SM, Fallon BJ, Aucote HM, & Möller-Leimkühler AM (2013). Development and preliminary
Author Manuscript

validation of the Male Depression Risk scale: Furthering the assessment of depression in men.
Journal of Affective Disorders, 151, 950–958. 10.1016/j.jad.2013.08.013 [PubMed: 24051100]
Rice SM, Fallon BJ, & Bambling M (2011). Men and depression: The impact of masculine role
norms throughout the lifespan. The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 28, 133–144.
10.1375/aedp282133
Robinson MS, & Alloy LB (2003). Negative cognitive styles and stress-reactive rumination interact to
predict depression: A prospective study. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27, 275–291. 10.1023/
A:1023914416469
Rochlen AB, McKelley RA, Suizzo M-A, & Scaringi V (2008). Predictors of relationship satisfaction,
psychological well-being, and life satisfaction among stay-at-home fathers. Psychology of Men
and Masculinity, 9, 17–28. 10.1037/1524-9220.9.1.17
Rouse SV (2015). A reliability analysis of Mechanical Turk data. Computers in Human Behavior, 43,
304–307. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.004
Roy AK, Dennis TA, & Warner CM (2015). A critical review of attentional threat bias and its role
Author Manuscript

in the treatment of pediatric anxiety disorders. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 29, 171–184.
10.1891/0889-8391.29.3.171 [PubMed: 32755946]
Sanders CE, Field TM, Diego M, & Kaplan M (2000). The relationship of Internet use to depression
and social isolation among adolescents. Adolescence, 35, 237–242. [PubMed: 11019768]
Santana AD (2014). Virtuous or vitriolic: The effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper
reader comment boards. Journalism Practice, 8, 18–33. 10.1080/17512786.2013.813194
Shah DV, Friedland LA, Wells C, Kim YM, Rojas H, & Bennett WL (2012). The personalization of
politics: Political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644, 20–39. 10.1177/0002716212451428

Psychol Men Masc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 January 19.
 Parent et al. Page 19

Shaw A (2014). The internet is full of jerks, because the world is full of jerks: What feminist
theory teaches us about the internet. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 11, 273–277.
Author Manuscript

10.1080/14791420.2014.926245
Shepherd CB, & Rickard KM (2012). Drive for muscularity and help-seeking: The mediational role of
gender role conflict, self-stigma, and attitudes. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 13, 379–392.
10.1037/a0025923
Shklovski I, Barkhuus L, Bornoe N, & Kaye J (2015). Friendship maintenance in the digital age:
Applying a relational lens to online social interaction. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference
on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 1477–1487). New York, NY:
ACM. 10.1145/2675133.2675294
Sosik VS, & Bazarova NN (2014). Relational maintenance on social network sites: How Facebook
communication predicts relational escalation. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 124–131.
10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.044
Stern MJ, & Adams AE (2010). Do rural residents really use the internet to build
social capital? An empirical investigation. American Behavioral Scientist, 53, 1389–1422.
10.1177/0002764210361692
Author Manuscript

Tabachnick BG, & Fidell LS (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Tandoc EC Jr., Ferrucci P, & Duffy M (2015). Facebook use, envy, and depression among college
students. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 139–146. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.053
Todd RM, Cunningham WA, Anderson AK, & Thompson E (2012). Affect-biased attention as emotion
regulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 365–372. 10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.003 [PubMed:
22717469]
Tsui V, Cheung M, & Leung P (2010). Help-seeking among male victims of partner abuse: Men’s hard
times. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 769–780. 10.1002/jcop.20394
Vogel DL, Heimerdinger-Edwards SR, Hammer JH, & Hubbard A (2011). “Boys don’t cry”:
Examination of the links between endorsement of masculine norms, self-stigma, and help-seeking
attitudes for men from diverse backgrounds. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 368–382.
10.1037/a0023688 [PubMed: 21639615]
Wade J, & Brittan-Powell C (2001). Men’s attitudes toward race and gender equity: The importance of
masculinity ideology, gender-related traits, and reference group identity dependence. Psychology
Author Manuscript

of Men and Masculinity, 2, 42–50. 10.1037/1524-9220.2.1.42

Weston R, & Gore PA Jr. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling
Psychologist, 34, 719–751. 10.1177/0011000006286345
Wong YJ, Ho MR, Wang S-Y, & Miller IS (2017). Meta-analyses of the relationship between
conformity to masculine norms and mental health-related outcomes. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 64, 80–93. 10.1037/cou0000176 [PubMed: 27869454]
Wong YJ, Owen J, & Shea M (2012). A latent class regression analysis of men’s conformity to
masculine norms and psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 176–183.
10.1037/a0026206 [PubMed: 22229799]
Young KS, & Rogers RC (1998). The relationship between depression and Internet addiction.
CyberPsychology and Behavior, 1, 25–28. 10.1089/cpb.1998.1.25
Author Manuscript

Psychol Men Masc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 January 19.
 Parent et al. Page 20
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 1.
Standardized path coefficients and standard errors.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Psychol Men Masc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 January 19.
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 1

Construct Intercorrelations

Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 M SD
Parent et al.

1. Hours on social media .06 .11* −.03 .19** .21** .16** .16** .17** 2.16 1.03

2. CMNI—Winning .21** .25** .10 .02 −.01 .09 .00 2.52 0.54

3. CMNI—Power Over Women .42** .11* .34** .10* .36** .19** 1.91 0.63

4. CMNI—Heterosexual Self-Presentation .03 .09 .06 .17** .10* 2.28 0.76

5. Online behaviors—positive .47** .04 .11* .00 2.88 0.87

6. Online behaviors—negative .21** .40** .27** 2.15 0.81

7. Depression symptoms (PHQ-9) .59** .83** 1.79 0.72

8. Masculine depression—internalizing .68** 1.65 0.56

9. Masculine depression—externalizing 1.81 0.66

Note. CMNI = Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46; PHQ-9 = Patient Health Questionniare–9.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

Psychol Men Masc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 January 19.
Page 21
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 2

Indirect Effects From Hours of Social Media and Toxic Masculinity to Depression

Standardized indirect effect 95% CI

Parent et al.

Independent variables Mediator Criterion variable β SE Lower bound Upper bound

Hours on social media Positive interactions Depression (PHQ-9) −.04 .02 −.077 −.005
Hours on social media Positive interactions Internalizing (MDS) −.06 .02 −.097 −.016
Hours on social media Positive interactions Externalizing (MDS) −.05 .02 −.089 −.013
Hours on social media Negative interactions Depression (PHQ-9) .06 .02 .014 .108
Hours on social media Negative interactions Internalizing (MDS) .12 .04 .040 .192
Hours on social media Negative interactions Externalizing (MDS) .08 .03 .022 .135
Toxic masculinity Negative interactions Depression (PHQ-9) .10 .03 .042 .159
Toxic masculinity Negative interactions Internalizing (MDS) .19 .05 .103 .280
Toxic masculinity Negative interactions Externalizing (MDS) .13 .03 .064 .196

Note. PHQ-9 = Patient Health Questionnaire–9; MDS = Masculine Depression Scale; CI = confidence interval. All 95% CIs do not cross 1, and as such all paths are significant at p < .05.

Psychol Men Masc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 January 19.
Page 22