PART II

EMPIRICAL PAPERS

PAPER 1

Who says what about whom?

An exploratory study on interpersonal gossip

Abstract

In popular speech and according to most dictionaries gossip is defined as negative talk about absent others. The scientific research on gossip expands this definition by including more positive talk as well. However, this very general definition of gossip is difficult to use in scientific studies, because it embodies so many different aspects of this complex human trait. I have therefore proposed to make use of a classification system of gossip where different well defined and significant different sub classifications of gossip are distinguished, based on their different functions.

To explore whether this classification system reflects what is gossiped about in our modern daily gossip conversations, I here present an exploratory study on Interpersonal Gossip. Making use of qualitative focus group interviews, I asked 103 respondents of different ages about their opinion on some aspects of gossip. They were divided in 14 groups, controlling for sex and age. Using semi-directive questionnaires all interviews were secured to be similar. The questionnaires did not reflect my theoretical framework in order to avoid guiding the answers.

Results show that younger respondents regard gossip less negative than older respondents. Further I found indications of presence of all different kinds of gossip I distinguish for in our daily gossip conversations. Additional information shows that the respondents care for reliability of gossip sources, and are aware of potential retaliation threats of the gossipee, however not at the moment they gossip, but afterwards. Opinions about sex differences in gossip behavior are different for the different age groups.

1 Introduction

“I have worked predominantly as a participant observer; probably there is no other way of acquiring knowledge about gossip.” (Hannerz, 1967:45). Previous research on gossip has mainly focused on the methodological method of participant observation. In the 1960’s and 1970’s ethnographical research about gossip was popular. The research was embedded in the discussion between Max Gluckman and Robert Paine. Gluckman (1963) believed that gossip primarily served the interests of groups, while Paine (1967) suggested that individuals gossip only for their own benefit. Many have researched both premises through participant observation. Some researchers have studied different cultures to show that gossip acts as a system to bond groups together by social control or reinforcement of social norms (e.g. Abrahams, 1970; Bleek, 1976; Colson, 1953; Cox, 1970; Gilmore, 1978;  Gluckman, 1963, 1968; Handelman, 1973; Haviland, 1977; Percival, 2000). Others showed that gossip acts as a manipulative strategy (e.g. Abrahams, 1970; Besnier, 1989; Bleek, 1976; Cox, 1970; Emler, 1990, 1992, 1994; Kurland and Pelled, 2000; Paine, 1967). Participant observation remained a popular research method. For instance Eder and Enke (1991) also used participant observation to reveal the structure of gossip; how meaning is build up through social interaction.

Another technique used to research gossip is conversation analysis. Levin and Arluke (1985) analyzed conversations of students to find out about male/ female differences, and Dunbar, Marriott and Duncan (1997) used the same technique to analyze the gossiping behavior of working people.

Participant observation and conversation analyses are both qualitative research techniques, which are recommended when researching human behavior that is subject of social desirability. Although Wilson (1974) argued that the presence of a researcher might also damage the privacy of gossipers and lead to false conclusions. My main concern using observational research techniques to study gossip is that it is so hard to have knowledge about the context, which is crucial to understand gossip (see also chapter 1).

In this paper I also opt for a qualitative research method to investigate some aspects of gossip. However, I did not opt for participant observation, but for focus group interviews. Focus group interviews, or non-schedule-structured interviews have the advantage that questions can be very flexible, which is desirable in an exploratory stage of research. Interviewers have control over the situation, can (re)direct when necessary, which results in fuller information. Disadvantages of focused interviews are interviewer bias and lack of anonymity. Interviewer bias refers to how the interviewer affects the respondents’ answers (Frankfurt-Nachmias & Nachmias, 1996).

2 Methodology

In 2004 an exploratory study was conducted to examine the presence of different forms of Interpersonal Gossip in our daily conversations, and to explore some dynamics of gossip as an act in our modern daily interactions.

Fourteen graduate students co-operated in this project. Eight students were trained to moderate focus groups, the other six helped with tasks such as recruiting respondents, organizing the focus groups, transcribing the texts, and analyzing the results.

Since gossip is considered to be a human universal (Brown, 1991) and every individual engages in gossip sometimes, I did not restrict anyone from taking part in this study. The only restrictions I made for recruiting participants concerned sex and age groups. Because I wanted to look at sex differences in the tendency to gossip and in the gossiped about topics, I wanted to have an equal male/female distribution of respondents. And since I also wanted to look at age-related potential differences in gossip topics, I set up different age groups.

In total, 103 participants were distributed over fourteen focus groups. All focus groups were conducted in Ghent with people of different age groups. I recruited 30 adolescents (younger than age 18), 32 young adults (aged between 18 and 30), 23 adults (aged 30-45), 17 middle-aged adults (aged 46-60) and 15 elderly people living in an elderly home (all over 65 years old). For each age group I set up a group of only male participants, a group with only female participants and if possible an extra group of mixed participants (for an overview see table 1.1).

To group respondents for focus groups, 4 is considered as the minimum size for a group and 12 the upper limit, with 6-8 participants an ideal average size. Small groups might be less productive, and more influenced by group dynamics, while larger groups are harder to control and easily run out of hand (Morgan & Scannell, 1998). The group size of my focus groups varied from 5 participants to 10 participants, and most groups reached an ideal average size of 6-8 participants (see table 1.1).

All adolescents were recruited at the same school, the ‘Koninklijk Atheneum’ of Zelzate, Flanders Belgium. The elderly men were recruited from the elderly home ‘Sint-Jozef’ in Ghent, the elderly women were recruited from the elderly home ‘Rozendael Service Residentie’, also located in Ghent. To recruit all other respondents, I used snowball sampling: asking friends and family members to ask others. I always secured that respondents were administered to a group with a moderator and assistant they did not know. The students co-operating in this project also distributed adverts in public places, such as bakeries, bars, shops and so on. Last, adverts were also broadcasted by the Ghent University Student Radio, and two national radio channels, ‘Studio Brussel’ and ‘Q-music’. Most of the responses came from ‘snowball sampling’: students’ friends and family members bringing on other people.

For all interviews it was tried to make the setting ‘cozy’ and natural. Adolescents were interviewed at school, sitting in a circle in a class room. The young adults were interviewed at someone’s home. The other adults got invited at the Communication Studies Department, were conference rooms were transformed to nice breakfast places. The elderly people gathered in the cafeteria of their elderly home. To thank all of my respondents I gave the adolescents a small gift (CD-single), the young adults all got drinks and appetizers, the other adults got breakfast, and the elderly people cake and coffee.

To reduce the researcher bias and to standardize all interviews, all interviewers used a semi-directive questionnaire and a list of topics to discuss[6]. This semi-directive questionnaire did not reflect the theoretical framework wherein I frame the results of these interviews, but took a rather different form, again to reduce interviewers’ guidance of the answers.

Each focus group interview started with distributing a copy of a same media gossip magazine (Story) to all respondents. They were asked to skim through it and take notice of what caught their interest. This task was followed by the focus group interview that discussed following topics: (1) media gossip, (2) what gossip is about, (3) good gossip vs. bad gossip, (4) who we gossip with and about, (5) gossip and reliability, and (6) sex differences in gossip behavior. I started with questions about media gossip, to give the respondents the opportunity to get used to one another, and get to know each other a little bit, before discussing more private interpersonal gossip topics, where some degree of social desirability might be present. Results on the mass media gossip will not be discussed in this paper. I refer to paper 5 for this, where they will be discussed as part of an exploratory study on Media Gossip.

Table 1.1.      Overview of participants of focus groups according to age groups and sex

In what follows I present the results of my focus group interviews on interpersonal gossip. I place these results in a theoretical framework that comprises ideas I proposed in chapter 1 through 6 of my theoretical part of my dissertation. I will refer to these chapters for the theoretical background, necessary to understand the results. I start my overview with some ideas I put forward in chapter 1; how we can define gossip in the most general sense.

3 The good, the bad, and the gossip

3.1 A very general definition of gossip

“Definitions of gossip will always be complex and controversial.” (Taylor, 1994: 34). In 1936 Henry Lanz published an article in which he compares ‘gossip’ with ‘the devil.’

Philologically the word “Devil”, Old English deofol , is derived from Greek diabolos (dia, “through,” and ballein, “to cast”), meaning “one who casts words,” “arguer,” “accuser,” “calumniator.” The Devil was originally associated with “sins of the tongue (Lanz, 1936: 492)

But

[s]trangely enough, the word gossip…points in the direction of heaven rather than the Devil (Lanz, 1936: 499)

This is because the word ‘gossip’ has not always had a negative connotation. Until the 19th century the noun ‘gossip’ referred to a mode of friendly conversation (Spacks, 1985). ‘Gossip’ is derived from the old English word godsibb, meaning ‘godparent’ or ‘godfather’. During the Elizabethan period (16th-17th centuries) gossip referred to male relationships involving friends gathering in bars and raising the glass. The female variant of gossip referred to the gathering of family and friends during childbirth to socialize and support the new mother.

Nowadays most dictionaries give a rather negative definition of gossip. For instance, the current definition of ‘gossip’ according to Merriam Webster’s Dictionary (www.m-w.com) is :

Gos·sip

1 a dialect British : GODPARENT b : COMPANION, CRONY c : a person who habitually reveals personal or sensational facts about others
2 a : rumor or report of an intimate nature b : a chatty talk c : the subject matter of gossip

The Dutch variant ‘roddel’ is defined according to Van Dale’s dictionary (www.vandale.be) as follows:

Rod·del (gossip as a noun)

1 kwaadsprekerij => achterklap, gekonkel, gekonkelfoes, gossip, kletspraat, roddelpraat (evil talk)

2 onwaar bericht, geval van roddel => kletspraatje, roddelpraatje (untrue message)

Rod·de·len (gossip as a verb)

1 met genoegen praten over anderen, m.n. in ongunstige zin => iem. over de tong halen, kletsen, konkelen (talking about other with joy, but in negative sense)

This rather negative view on how to define gossip differs from the scientific discourse on the definition of gossip. Today there are countless definitions of gossip in the social sciences. Because language can be used to communicate on an enormous variety of topics, I do not believe that there is a single definition of gossip, nor do I find it surprising that there are a number of theories of gossip (see Foster 2004 for a review).  What is surprising is the degree to which different definitions and theories of gossip, even those developed from the study of a range of diverse cultures (e.g. Abrahams 1970; Besnier 1989; Brenneis 1984, 1987; Colson 1953; Cox 1970; Gilmore 1978; Goodwin 1990a,b; Haviland 1977), overlap with one another. Most researchers agree that gossip is intimately related to reputation and the doings of others (e.g. Hannerz, 1967; Bromley, 1988), and plays a central role in community dynamics. Some researchers limit the definition of gossip to talk about absent others (e.g. Arno, 1980; Ayim, 1994; Bergmann, 1993; Eder & Enke, 1991; Gelles, 1989; Morreall, 1994; Nevo & Nevo, 1993). Rosnow and Fine (1974), however, believe gossip occurs regardless of the presence or absence of its subjects. Others go a step further to suggest that one can gossip about oneself (Dunbar, 1998a,b; Fox, 2001; Hess and Hagen 2002b, 2004b). 

I use the term gossip in the very general sense as:

Information about the deviant or surprising (which both depend on the context) traits and behaviors of a (or more) third person(s) (most often non-present, but potentially present in the conversation), where the sender has true/false knowledge of the gossip content.

To get some notice of how this definition contrasts from the common sense definition, and to see whether people can agree on defining gossip so general, I interviewed my respondents about this.

3.2 Respondents’ view on gossip in general

What is gossip about? When first asked this question my respondents spontaneously replied ‘behaviors’ of others, and also ‘personal traits’.  But not just any behavior or trait, as they report:

Behaviors of others, but only if it is a remarkable behavior (Male young adult)

Personal traits you do not expect and that do… (Male young adult)

Things you could not predict (Male young adult)

These responses reflect the restrictions I added to my general definition of gossip. Gossip is either surprising, or if it is not unexpected it reports about deviant behavior. As one young adult reported, gossip can be about someone’s predictable regular behavior pattern that is different from what any other average person does. For instance if slapping each others back is not a regular habit of people in your surrounding and someone always slaps you on the back, this is gossiped about:

For instance, someone who always does the same thing, can also be gossip. Each time as he walks in, for instance and this person slaps you on the back and says “hey how are you” (Female young adult).

In my general definition of ‘gossip’ both good talk and bad talk is embodied. Next to truthful information also lies get labeled as ‘gossip’, as long as the sender has true/false knowledge. To explore how people feel about this very general definition of gossip I asked my 103 respondents to define gossip. I opened up the debate whether gossip is good, bad or both, and whether gossip is about lies or truthful information. Most of my participants tended to answer that gossip is ‘bad talk about absent others’. This opinion seems to reflect how ‘gossip’ is defined in nowadays dictionaries (see above). However, as one of my respondents reflects:

But there is a difference between what they write in dictionaries and how people use it. If people say ‘gossip’ they refer to bad talk. But gossip in general can be good as well. (Male young adult).

I noticed that my respondents’ attitude changed as the discussion developed, admitting that gossip is not only bad talk. Further, I also noticed some differences according to age and sex. Adolescent girls were milder in their opinion about ‘what gossip is about’. In their opinion ‘gossip’ can both be bad talk and more innocent chitchat.

Gossip is talking bad about others (Female adolescent)

To which another girl replies:

No, it is not always bad talk. If I for instance say to Jennifer: “look she is wearing such a nice dress”, it is no bad talk isn’t it? (Female adolescent).

To which another female adolescent replies:

Yes, you can also just chitchat, gossip magazines do the same, like “she is wearing the same clothes as so and so”. (Female adolescent).

Young adults and other adults as well admitted that gossip can both be good and bad talk about others, but added that bad talk is more easily associated with ‘gossip’. Innocent chitchat is not always ‘gossip’ in their opinion:

I would say it is more general. When it is negative yes [it is gossip] but also telling more objective facts is gossip. True things but you do not pass on everything: you say “have you heard…” and whether it is good or bad about that person, you pass it on. (Male adult).

To which another man replies:

Obviously it doesn’t matter for Marc if it is good or bad [talk], if it is true or not. He labels it  all as gossip. For me, personally, gossip is evil talk, bad talk. I go along with Ellen [and others]. You can talk about someone, like Jennifer says, when something has happened in a relation or with a friend and you take your time for that. You really explain something to a third person. And that does not need to be gossip. I think gossip mainly occurs in the daily superficial context like when we talk about the weather, but actually with a negative intention to talk bad about someone (Male adult).

Last, elderly people were most negative in their opinion about the definition of gossip. They all agreed that gossip is bad talk and they did not change their opinion as the debate developed:

Gossip is bad. And if gossip is about lies it is even worse. One of he worst things of our modern times. Bad talk about others that are lies, if the information is not true, that is real gossip, isn’t it… And he did this and he did that and he did so and so, I so detest this gossip. (Elderly man).

In sum, the reflection of my respondents on what gossip is about, shows that gossip is mostly seen as ‘bad talk’ about surprising events. Although all admit that gossip is more than just bad talk and also represents more innocent chitchat, most respondents have mixed feelings to use gossip to refer to innocent talk. Of course the fact that dictionaries label gossip as ‘bad talk’ does not contribute to changing people’s ideas. As long as the dictionaries won’t change their definition, I think it is idle hope to belief people will start concerning gossip as both good and bad talk about others.

Remarkable, however, is that the connotation of ‘gossip’ becomes more negative as the age of my respondents increases. Adolescents, and especially young girls, do not regard gossip as negative as young adults and older adults do. And elderly people have the most negative feelings towards gossip.

In chapter 5 I have explained that what is known as the ‘negativity bias’ explains that people are more drawn to negative news and events, and remember this better (e.g. Ito, Larsen, Smith & Cacioppo, 1998; Lupfer, Weeks & Dupuis, 2000; Rozin and Royzman, 2001; Taylor, 1991). The negativity bias might explain why humans have such a negative view on gossip as their age increases. As age increases, respondents probably remember negative experiences with gossip better and stronger, which might cause negative feelings to increase with age. However, since this is just an exploratory study, I can only report indications of this to be true. Additional research is necessary to falsify or proof this prediction.

4 A classification of gossip according to functional design

In chapter 4 I suggested to classify gossip as an overall noun in smaller sub definitions that can be easily operationalized. Starting from the most general definition of gossip I suggested that a first classification level is best funded on the focus of the information and the role of the gossipee. If the focus lies on the behavioral information and the role of the gossipee is minor I talk about Strategy Learning Gossip (see also below). If the gossipee has a more central role, and if the behavior or traits gossiped about cannot be detached from this gossipee, I talk about Reputation Gossip. For details about how I came to this classification system I refer to chapter 4. In what follows, I will summarize how I define the different kinds of gossip and present some indicative results that show how all different kinds of gossip I classified are present in our current daily conversations.

4.1 Strategy Learning Gossip

To start this overview of the presence of the different kinds of gossip I classified in chapter four, let me shortly resume what Strategy Learning Gossip is about. Strategy Learning Gossip (SLG) concerns information about the fitness-relevant behavior strategies of other people from which receivers can learn how to behave and how not to behave in the future. I differentiated between Survival-SLG, Mating-SLG and Social-SLG. The first concerns information about how to improve or secure your survival. Strategies that clearly benefit your fitness or strategies that have clear fitness-endangering outcomes. Mating-SLG transmits information that can be helpful in solving problems in the context of mating. The trial-and-error strategies of others can teach us how to act and not act in the future when faced with a mating problem. Social-SLG is information about which behavior strategies are beneficial and harmful in the context of living with, and interacting with other people. Social-SLG teaches us about norms, values and social contracts.

In what follows I now overview the responses from my interviewees that indicate the presence of SLG in their daily conversations. I overview all kinds of SLG together, and will mention the differences when necessary. In general my respondents did not mention very much about gossip as a learning strategy. Most results stem from answers and discussions from older, adult respondents. But I will start with presenting what adolescents and young adults talked about that indicates they use SLG to solve daily problems of mating and social issues. A female young adult I interviewed explained explicitly that gossip sometimes is more about situations than about specific gossipees:

For instance last weekend. At my boyfriend’s place they run a business and everyone is always very occupied and running around, and ok I do understand. But I had asked him, well for the gala dance this Friday “Well will you join me?” and he was like “I do not know yet.” He asked his dad who replied “Well I don’t know, you have to ask your step mom.” And then she to another person and so on. Finally I told this to my close friend like “Gosh I really hate he has to ask such and so.” But actually I gossip about the situation and not about a specific person. In the end I might be talking about people, but they actually do not matter.  And I think this happens to us a lot at school: you talk about situations, and people are mentioned, but in the end… well this is gossip as well. And I think that we, women, are actually not talking about other people, but just about this you know. Don’t you? Well, we discuss situations, and I just think… yes well these persons are mere characters, and in the end it just matters that you want to clear out a situation. And we women consider this to be gossip, while men do not call this gossip. In principle men talk about this as well, I guess,… (Female young adult).

What she reports about clearly is SLG: exchanging information about how others deal with problems, to know which strategy to use in the future. The example she gave concerned Mating SLG and Social SLG. She gossiped with her friend to learn how to deal with her boyfriend and his family members. Another male young adult added to this that especially girls gossip to solve problems about mating situations:

To give a concrete example, there was this girl and something had happened with her and her boyfriend. Well then she went to tell others like “My boyfriend treats me like this and that”. And other girls will reply “Oh yes, but my boyfriend does the same, and all boys are like that and so and so”. Men do not say such things to each other. Well yes, they will say “I did this and that” (Male young adult).

Even though this male young adult accounts this to be typical for girls, other male adolescents I interviewed reported to also gossip about mating problems with a focus on the situation:

Yes, we discuss if she [girlfriend or someone else’s girlfriend] complains a lot! Yes, women, they complain and complain! (Male adolescent).

Yes, we talk about our miseries with women (Male adolescent)

From hearing others I now know I have always had bad relations (Male adolescent).

Other than talking about how they exchange information about strategies to use to solve mating problems, adolescents also reported about other forms of SLG. More specific, they informed that they exchange information with each other on how to solve problems when babysitting others’ children. They also classify this as gossip, and I would classify this as Strategy Learning Gossip, and more specific as Mating-SLG. Parenting skills are important in the context of mating; knowing how to be a good parent and being a good parent increases your mate value.

Well, like, I went babysitting last weekend, and then I talk about what happened. The troubles I had, the baby that was ill, or about the parents’ behavior, they were home early, a bit of everything (Female adolescent).

Besides indicating that they exchange Mating-SLG adolescents and young adults also talked about how they exchange gossip information that fits into Social-SLG. Gossip that informs individuals about social norms and how to behave. One female young adult told a personal experience. Being non-careful she had run over a shoe rack, which injured the owner of the shop rather badly. In the end her parents had to pay a large sum of money for the incident. This kind of information warns others to be careful in the future, because non-carefulness can end up rather costly:

It can also be about stupid things huh. I once ran over a shoe rack in a store, with all very expensive shoes that fell off and an expensive vase fell on the floor as well. My parents had to pay like half a million to reimburse the shop owner! And they gossiped about this a lot (Female young adult).

Further, adolescent respondents reported that they learn what others’ norms and values are through gossip. By talking about others they mention to learn what is appropriate to do to fit in a certain group and what you better not do to appear good in the eyes of others. If for instance all girls wear pants and someone walks in wearing a miniskirt they will gossip about the girl wearing the miniskirt because it is ‘so not done’ as they say. Gossiping about others teaches the receivers how they best behave to be merited in the eyes of the sender.

You know, if he says to you “That is already the third time she has a new boyfriend”, well then you know that this person does not like people who often switch boyfriends. You get to know this person better, you learn about his values and norms and you learn what is good and what is bad according to them (Female adolescent).

Of the respondents I interviewed, the older adults reported most of all on how they used gossip as a learning-mechanism. Their use of SLG concerns solving problems of mating, and social problems, with a high focus on parenting problems. This of course is due to the fact that most of the interviewed adults are parents themselves. Adults also debated about the different value of good things that happen to other people and bad things that happen to others. They all agreed that negative information has a higher value. This is in line with the theory about our negativity bias, as I explained earlier. Negative events have a higher impact, and therefore information about how to avoid danger appeals more than information about how to promote success.

I tend to focus on behavior in general, also for my job. Behaviors like how others react in a certain situation. In my private life as a mom of two children this happens with friends as well: How do they deal with their kids in such a problematic situation, again this is about behaviors of others (Female adult).

I think we constantly learn through gossip. It can be something small, a small hint, like when you hear something and you say to yourself ‘Well I have never thought of that before” It can be small things. About living habits, eating habits, appearance, clothes, doing the laundry and so on. “You can solve this doing this and other tips”. (Female middle-aged adult).

Yes we talk about marriages, pregnancies, divorces, and other things that happen to other people. It is something both men and women do; it cannot be separated as typical for women or men (Female young adult).

Lastly few elderly people I interviewed reported about Strategy Learning Gossip that focuses on events:

I guess we gossip more about events huh… not about people, we do not gossip about people, well not bad… (Elderly man).

For elderly people mating-SLG has little relevance. As I will mention in the next section as well, elderly people feel that mating problems and pleasures are no longer of their concern. Social-SLG has greater relevance for them. Learning how to behave is relevant. Especially for the elderly people I interviewed, because they all recently moved into a new social environment (elderly homes) where new rules need to be learned. Their responses however did not explicitly indicate that they use gossip as a learning mechanism. But the fact that they gossip about others who violate social norms, as I will discuss later under Cheater Detection Reputation Gossip, indicates that they are focused on information about rules and norms. And since they share information about norm-violators, they automatically learn and corroborate their knowledge on what is appropriate to do and how they best behave and not behave.

However, highest relevance for elderly people might stem from Survival-SLG, and especially SLG about health and health problems. My elderly interviewees reported to gossip a lot about other people’s illnesses. They indicated that they talk both about who was ill, which is person-related gossip, and the illnesses in se, which is of course SLG.

In sum, SLG seems to occur in the daily conversations of both men and women of all ages. Adolescents and young adults exchange most Mating-SLG. Older adults seem to be the biggest consumers of SLG, with a special interest for SLG about parenting skills. The elderly people I interviewed reported almost nothing about SLG, yet these are some indications that Social SLG about rules and Survival SLG about health is present in their gossip conversations.

In my view of gossip as a learning mechanism, and especially for Strategy Learning Gossip, I focus on how we can learn from the content of gossip. What I haven’t focused on in my theoretical approach to gossip, and what the interviewees have made clear is that learning also stems from the reactions of gossip receivers. Senders of gossip learn as well, when they notice that receivers approve or disapprove the gossiped about traits and behaviors of others.

You can learn something yourself from the reactions of others. I personally experience this with my boyfriend. When I tell him things and he reacts like “What does this do to you? Don’t bother about that too much, what that person did is not worth it!” and then I realize like, yes he is right, I should not care too much about what other people do to each other. You learn from others’ reactions (Female adult).

In the behavioral models, which I presented in chapter 5, I have not taken into account the aspect that senders’ motivation to share SLG might be to get return-knowledge. In the future it might be useful and worthy though to consider this aspect of sharing SLG as well.

4.2 Mating Gossip in everyday life

At the first level of classification I mention Reputation Gossip (RG) next to Strategy Learning Gossip. Reputation Gossip concerns information about the traits and behaviors attached to a specific person (gossipee). Replacing the gossipee with another subject changes the value of RG. Reputation Gossip can be further classified in smaller sub categories. Some of the specific kinds of RG function to inform receivers about information about specific persons. Reputation Gossip therefore also has a learning function, but a different one from SLG in the sense that we learn about people, while with SLG we learn about strategies. Besides this learning function, RG also functions to manipulate the reputations of gossipees. On a general level I classify RG in Mating RG and Social RG. I start here with the first, and later turn to the latter.

Mating RG functions to inform us about the reputation as a sexual partner of specific others and to manipulate these reputations. In my interviews I asked general questions about gossip, focusing on the difference between good and bad gossip. I did not focus as much on the different categories of gossip. This to ensure I did not manipulate my respondents too much in the direction of this theoretical framework.

Adolescents and young adults spontaneously mentioned how they gossip about boyfriends and girlfriends, sexual rivals, and who sleeps around with whom. Older adults I interviewed as well admitted that a lot is gossiped about relationships. Different from the adolescents and young adults, older adults’ Mating Gossip focuses more on existing relations and troubles within relationships. Elderly people I interviewed did not report to gossip about sexual relationships. It is not of their interest, or as an elderly woman told me: “This is not for us anymore”.

In sum, Mating-RG as well as Mating-SLG are forms of gossip that seem to occur most in the conversations of adolescents and young adults. As age increases, the engagement in such gossip seems to decrease.

4.2.1 Mates Detection Reputation Gossip: who is a good mate

As I explained in chapter 4, section 3.6.1.1 Mates Detection RG concerns information that solves the problem of finding good potential mates. Mates Detection RG focuses on the reputation of men and women as sexual partners. It subsists of information about their ‘mating skills’. Are they good or bad sexual partners?

As I outlined in chapter 4 as well (section 3) what men and women value for potential partners differentiates. Physical appearance is important for both men and women, but in general men pay more attention to the physical appearance of potential female partners. Women, both in their search for short-term and long-term partners pay more attention to the ability and willingness of investment of male potential partners (Buss, 1994). I therefore expect that Mates Detection RG about female gossipees will focus more on beauty aspects, while Mates Detection RG about male gossipees will focus more on investment abilities and willingness.

When focusing on what our respondents answered on the different aspects of gossip I asked them about, I did find some support for presence of Mates Detection RG in everyday conversations, and mainly among the younger respondents. Adolescents report to gossip quite a lot about mating reputations of other school mates. They do not say this explicitly, but mention to talk a lot about the expensive gadgets of boys and the looks of other girls. These reflect status and beauty, which in evolutionary terms are crucial cues used to estimate the value of potential partners. What strikes though, is that a lot more attention is paid to the physical appearance of adolescent girls than to the investment abilities of boys. All adolescents we interviewed reported talking more about the looks of girls. And both good looks and bad looks are discussed:

How they look. And mainly about girls (Male adolescent).

If she is beautiful yes (Male adolescent).

And if she is ugly as well (Male adolescent).

Among the young adults I interviewed, not much was talked about Mates Detection RG. Their answers indicated that more is talked about Mating Structure RG, which I turn to in the next section.

Still, talking about physical appearances remains a popular topic among young adults and older adults. And even elderly people indicate that a lot is gossiped about the clothes of others, especially other women. Some of the adult women I interviewed even claim that physical appearance becomes a more discussed about topic as age increases. They report that looks and health issues become of great significance at a certain age, and this is reflected in gossip conversations.

That less attention is paid to the investment capacities of adolescents and young adults might simply be due to the fact that adolescents and young adults do not yet earn a lot of money, and have not yet accumulated many possessions. In the responses of our older adults, I did find some more support for people gossiping about the wealth of others. Especially if others have abundant wealth and seem to spend a lot of money, this will be gossiped about:

Yes we gossip about money. I sometimes think by myself, when looking in my own wallet “Jeez, they must earn so much more, the way they spend their money”, yes these are things I talk about. (Female middle-aged adult, all others female middle-aged adults agreed on this).

4.2.2 Mating Structure Reputation Gossip: who sleeps with whom

Where Mates Detection RG focuses on the reputations of men and women as good potential partners, Mating Structure RG is the other key to solve problems of finding potential mates. In our search it is not only important to know who is a potential good mate or not. Being single can be considered as a Mates Detection RG topic, but as important to know is who is not single and who is dating whom. Poaching (attracting someone who is already committed to someone else) occurs both with men and women, say Schmitt and Buss (2001). But one does not steal just anyone from anyone. Mating Structure RG functions to update people about the sexual ties of members of someone’s social network.

In my interviews, I only found reflections of this form of Mating Gossip in the answers of adolescents and young adults. They reported to talk a lot about who is dating someone and who is still, or again single. Such gossip spreads fast, they also add:

This can go really fast!... Yes it goes really fast! If you arrive at school and you are dating someone for only a day, by lunchtime the whole school knows about this. So only about two hours it takes, or maximum a day or so (Female adolescent).

In a small town such news spreads very fast. We once did a little experiment. we told that our male scout leader had an affair with our female scout leader. That was around 9.30am. The girl went home at 11.30am and her mom already knew! So fast these things pass on (Male young adult).

I once went out with some people from work [weekend job] and got along very well with Caro, who is like 27 years old. I stayed over at her house. And yes we slept in the same bed. But nothing happened. And the next week everyone was saying things like “Are those together and blablabala” (laughs) The whole neighborhood knew. They all thought I would be the dad of her new child. Her kid is six years old! But he is cute though (Male adolescent).

Many of my family members play volleyball. And it once was spread around that I had an affair with one of the players. It even reached my parents, and my mom kept on asking me “Ellen, don’t you need to tell me something?” This continued for months and months. My whole family was talking about it. Really annoying (Female adolescent).

The older adults and elderly people I interviewed did not mention facts that indicate they gossip about who sleeps with whom a lot. For elderly people the reason might simply be that Mating Gossip in general is not of their interest anymore, as I already mentioned earlier. For older adults Mating Structure RG might have less relevance, since at their age many have long-term established relationships, which do not change dramatically anymore. Adults most probably have good knowledge about who is dating whom and need to be updated less about this kind of information.

4.2.3 Intrasexual Conflict Reputation Gossip: female warfare

Intrasexual Conflict RG concerns information that functions to update us about and manipulate sexual rivals. As explained in chapter 4, section 3.6.2, I mentioned Sexual Rival Detection RG and Sexual Rival Slander RG. The first functions to inform individuals about who is a sexual rival. The second, Sexual Rival Slander RG is information that functions to decrease the mating reputation of a same-sex rival. As explained in chapter 4, section 3.3, Buss and Schmitt (1993) predicted that women will slander other rival women by attacking their physical appearance, while men will slander other men’s reputation as potential mate by criticizing their abilities and willingness to invest and commit. This is a very manipulative form of gossip, with the clear function to manipulate the sexual reputation of gossipees, and with the special note that these manipulations are all directed towards decreasing reputations, and are not at all about increasing reputations. Hess and Hagen (2002) have argued that this slanderous form of gossip is especially present among girls. Girls do not engage in physical aggression as easily as boys do, and their reputations are more vulnerable. Slanderous gossip to ruin the reputation of same-sex competitors, Hess and Hagen (2002) say, is an ideal tool to combat same-sex rivals in the search for a potential mate.

Looking at the interviewees’ responses, this slanderous form of gossip occurs in the responses of adolescents and young adults. Again, elderly people did not mention anything about this negative form of Mating Reputation Gossip. Older adults’ responses hardly reflected anything either, but as one woman explained to me, this might be due to the fact that once you have established a good relationship, you feel less insecure and do not have that urge to slander potential rivals:

When it comes to sexual relations, you calm down as you grow older, because you become more secure. If