Real Men Don’t Commit Jingle-Jangle Fallacies, or do They? Comparing the Nomological Networks of Classical, Toxic, and Harmful Masculinity

Several studies have focused on the effects of endorsing masculinity norms, and various measures have been developed to assess this construct. However, existing measures partly emphasize different contents. Furthermore, toxic masculinity and harmful masculinity claim to augment more classical conceptualizations of masculinity, but compelling evidence about their novelty is missing. Ultimately, it is quite unclear whether broader constructs do not readily cover the endorsement of masculinity norms. This preregistered study (n = 1,077 German men) compared the nomological networks of masculinity measures to evaluate whether they suffer from jingle (i.e., false assumption that scales with the same measurement intention actually measure the same construct) and jangle (i.e., false assumption that measures with different measurement intentions actually measure different constructs) fallacies. High intercorrelations, negligible correlation differences, and high similarity of the correlation profiles militate against the novelty of toxic and harmful masculinity vis-à-vis classical masculinity conceptualizations. Further, they underscore that classical masculinity measures actually measure the same construct. Last, the correlation profiles of all masculinity measures differed considerably from those of openness to experience, a social dominance orientation, and right-wing authoritarianism. These findings underscore the uniqueness of the endorsement of classical masculinity as a construct, while evidence for the existence of harmful and toxic masculinities as unique constructs is thin at best. As such, our findings promote the conceptual clarity in masculinity research.