Warber THE ROLE OF INTERPERSONAL JEALOUSY IN GOSSIP: AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE. Kathleen M. Warber. University of Arizona, Tucson

Transcription

1 Warber 1 THE ROLE OF INTERPERSONAL JEALOUSY IN GOSSIP: AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE Kathleen M. Warber University of Arizona, Tucson Department of Communication

2 Warber 2 ABSTRACT This study looks at the role of interpersonal jealousy, particularly sexual and emotional jealousy, in gossip. Operating from an evolutionary framework, this study aims to clarify why humans gossip by arguing that people gossip as a way to cope with the interpersonal jealousy that results from a perceived threat on a valued relationship. In order to establish gender differences in gossip, connections are drawn between the topics men and women prefer to gossip about, as well as who men and women prefer to hear gossip about, and who they prefer to gossip about. Though historically the term gossip has primarily been used to describe the idle small talk of women, it could be that men and women are just gossiping differently, about different subjects. A survey was used to measure participant s level of interpersonal jealousy, including emotional and sexual jealousy, as well as their propensity to gossip. Participants were also asked to rank traits of those they prefer to hear gossip about, and those about which they prefer to gossip. Results indicate that gender differences in gossip do exist, such that women gossip more than men. The evolutionary perspective that argues people prefer to hear about and gossip about those who are similar (e.g., age, gender, etc.), rather than those who are different, is also supported. No gender differences in interpersonal jealousy were observed; however, correlations between interpersonal jealousy and gossip were prevalent.

3 Warber 3 The Role of Interpersonal Jealousy in Gossip: An Evolutionary Perspective INTRODUCTION What is gossip? Why is it that humans are so fascinated with spreading the intimate details of other people s lives? Perhaps by comparing our behavior with that of others in our social circles, we become better able to gauge our personal experiences, feelings, and attitudes. Alternatively, maybe by detailing the shortcomings of others, we can increase our self-esteem and attempt to improve our social status among those who are important to us. On the other hand, gossiping too much may cause one to lose status, and become untrustworthy in the eyes of his or her peers. Though gossip is an everyday occurrence, it has not received commensurate theoretical or empirical attention from communication scholars. Though many definitions of gossip have been offered, few have studied the overarching evolutionary purposes that gossip serves. Gossip has traditionally been defined as idle talk about named others that are not present in the conversation, and it typically entails damaging, exploitable information about that nonpresent other (Adkins, 2002; Ben-Ze ev, 1994; Fine & Rosnow, 1978; Spacks, 1985; Yerkovich, 1977). Gossip is arguably the most frequently occurring speech event (Goldsmith & Baxter, 1996), establishing it as solid source of informal information and knowledge. This form of off-the-record communication has implications for the acquisition of knowledge that might otherwise be considered unattainable. Information that is attained through gossip is typically not widespread, and is therefore considered a valued commodity. Hence, gossip represents something scarce, and thus captivating (Rosnow, 1977, 2001). Though gossip typically has a negative connotation, it technically encompasses all evaluative comments, and is most often attributed to females (Brogan, 1925; Eder & Enke, 1991; Goodwin, 1980; Kuttler, Parker, & La Greca, 2002; Proveda & Crim, 1975). Gossip has been argued to serve both a group function, by solidifying social norms (Besnier, 1989; Emler, 2001; Fine & Rosnow, 1978; Gluckman, 1963; Hannerz, 1967; Haviland, 1977; Stirling, 1956; Suls, 1977) and an individual function, used to advance one s self-interests (Abrahams, 1970; Besnier, 1989; Fine & Rosnow, 1978; McAndrew & Milenkovic, 2002; Paine, 1967, Stirling, 1956). And though it may be assumed that people gossip

4 Warber 4 primarily about their enemies, it could be the case that those we disparage the most are truly our friends (Tanner, 1963). RATIONALE AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE An Evolutionary Framework. From an evolutionary perspective, gossip serves an adaptive purpose that gives an individual an advantage over others, increasing his or her likelihood of survival and reproduction (Barkow, 1992; Buss & Dedden, 1990; Davis & McLeod, 2003; Emler, 2001). Those who have the predisposition to quickly acquire and exchange pertinent social information would undoubtedly have an advantage over those who do not have such abilities. Gossiping too little could lead one to feel left out of his or her social circle, and could preclude a person from acquiring the social information necessary to thrive within his or her surroundings. Gossiping too much, on the other hand, could cause one to lose status and trust with peers. A moderate level of gossip, then, should allow an individual to navigate within his or her social environment by controlling and monitoring the flow of information within groups, thus, giving him or her an advantage over those who gossip too much, or too little. Dunbar (1996) argues that human gossiping replaced the grooming ritual that our closest ancestors, monkeys and apes, use as a tool for socializing within their respective environments. Because apes do not have the capacity for language as we know it, they have to rely on close physical contact in order to understand the characteristics of others within their group. This type of surveillance, however, is time consuming. In contrast, the capacity for language allows humans to acquire this vital social information verbally. Furthermore, language allows humans to obtain and disperse information much more quickly than the observational methods of their primate ancestors. Gossip then, can operate as a form of social surveillance that aids in the navigation of one s surrounding environment. Research shows that human ancestors typically lived as members of small interdependent groups that were in competition with other, similar groups. As such, ingroup cooperation was a necessary component of survival. Ingroup competition, however, was unavoidable because available resources had to be divided among group members (Dunbar, 1996). Shakelford (1997) argues that ingroup competition led to adaptive problems that were social in nature. Such problems included managing family

5 Warber 5 relationships and friendships, and finding a suitable mate for reproduction. The social prowess needed for success in this context made it necessary to predict and influence the behaviors of others. Any trait that would have exhibited this social intelligence would have been selected for, giving those with the propensity to gossip a distinct advantage. Engaging in social comparisons, coupled with a tendency to gossip, would have been particularly advantageous, because social comparison can induce change at both the individual and group level (McAndrew & Milenkovic, 2002). The evolutionary importance of detecting cheaters offers an explanation for the adaptive nature of gossip. According to McAndrew and Milenkovic (2002), gossip can be an effective means of uncovering such information about others and an especially useful way of controlling these free-riders who may be tempted to violate group norms of reciprocity by taking more from the group than they give in return (p. 1067). Evolutionary concepts such as kin selection and cheater detection support the idea that gossip is an adaptive behavior. By accumulating social information about others within one s environment, an individual is better able to gauge his or her own standing within that environment. The better individuals understand their environment, the greater their likelihood of survival. In terms of mate selection, it would reason that individuals are prone to gossip about those of the same gender, and roughly the same age, as these individuals represent the most direct competition for a mate. Gossiping provides the medium for attaining information about mate competitors. It also enhances one s ability to detect cheaters, or those likely to engage in infidelity. It is important to look at what people prefer to hear gossip about, as well as what people gossip about, because hearing gossip and actually engaging in the verbal act of gossip are two different concepts. Hearing gossip and taking in information about those in one s social environment is a passive activity. Spreading gossip, however, is a much more active behavior, that requires a certain amount of motivation, reasoning, and intent. Consistent with theory and research about whom individuals like to hear gossip, and about whom they like to gossip, the following related hypotheses have been advanced. H1a: Individuals prefer to hear gossip about those in their own age group. H1b: Individuals prefer to hear gossip about those of their own gender. H1c: Individuals prefer to gossip about those of their own gender.

6 Warber 6 Group vs. Individual Functions of Gossip. The study of gossip from a social science perspective has its roots in two distinct camps, the group function and the individual function. It has been argued that gossip evolved as an adaptive characteristic that allows one to socialize within a group (Besnier, 1989; Emler, 2001; Fine & Rosnow, 1978; Gluckman, 1963; Hannerz, 1967; Haviland, 1977; Stirling, 1956; Suls, 1977). Though many seem to get some personal satisfaction from engaging in gossip, the opinion of the majority posits that gossip functions as a form of social control within groups. The fact that gossip exists across cultures suggests its universal nature, offering support for an evolutionary basis for gossip (Besnier, 1989; Colson, 1953; Haviland, 1977; Herskovits, 1937, 1947). Gossip serves to maintain, establish, and communicate the social norms of a society. When people deviate from established norms, their peers gossip within the social group in an attempt to negotiate the meaning of the violation, and establish its severity on a continuum of social appropriateness. Gossiping helps us map our social environment. By gossiping with others, we can better understand the target of the gossip, and his or her relative position within a larger societal context. Gossiping allows for the subjective understanding of relevant others in relation to their physical environment. According to Gluckman (1963), gossiping with one another helps maintain the boundaries of a group within a wider society. Furthermore, gossiping with one another about the affairs of close friends allows for the covert surveillance of those with which we are in direct competition, while at the same time, acting as a form of social control within groups. It has also been proposed that gossiping is an individual attempt to gain status and power over others (Abrahams, 1970; Besnier, 1989; Fine & Rosnow, 1978; McAndrew & Milenkovic, 2002; Paine, 1967, Stirling, 1956). Paine (1967) argues that gossip is a purposive activity that is used to advance one s self-interests. He hypothesizes that gossipers also have rival interests; that they gossip, and also regulate their gossip, to forward and protect their individual interests (p. 280). Gossip, when operating at the individual level, is a mechanism used to manipulate information. In this regard, gossipers must learn to strategically disperse information that they believe they can use to gain status, without being so obvious as to ruin their own reputation. Gossip, then, can be viewed as having a rhetorical aspect, wherein those

7 Warber 7 well versed in the art of speaking will prove to be more reliable and trusted sources of information (Abrahams, 1970; Paine, 1967). Suls (1977) argues, gossiping may serve to satisfy our need for comparison information while allowing the individual to avoid the problems associated with its direct acquisition (p. 165). Gossip presents an opportunity for one to make judgments about a nonpresent other to a larger group. This type of strategy has a low level of risk because it is an indirect attack, to which the target of the attack cannot immediately respond (Herskovits, 1937). This suggests that gossipers utilize power-play strategies through which self-promotion can be attained (Noon & Delbridge, 1993). The idea that gossip operates as an individual strategy of social comparison is rooted in Festinger s (1954) social comparison theory. Social comparison theory argues that people have a need to gather information about those who are similar to them in order to form correct self-appraisals. Individuals make both upward and downward comparisons to others as a way of forming their own self-concept. Though Festinger s theory does not address dispersion of this information, it is reasonable to assume that both positive and negative gossip will be used as a means of evaluating one s self-concept. When individuals feel threatened, they may compare themselves with those higher or lower in status in an attempt to bolster self-esteem (Suls, 1977). Gossiping, then, provides the opportunity for individuals to put their own personal spin on information about others, as a way to frame their relative standing to the target of the gossip. Based upon the group function of gossip which suggests gossip serves as a form of social control within groups, it stands to reason that people would prefer to engage in gossip about others who are similar (i.e., members of the same social group), rather than those who are different. Based on this rationale, the following interrelated hypotheses are being proposed. H2a: Individuals prefer to hear gossip about those who are similar to them, rather than those who are different from them. H2b: Individuals prefer to gossip about those who are similar to them, rather than those who are different from them. H3: Individuals gossip most about their close friends. Gender Differences in Gossip.

8 Warber 8 In order to establish a solid evolutionary base for arguing that gossiping can serve as a coping mechanism for sexual jealousy, gender differences must be established. Historically, gossip has been attributed to women. Examination of the history of gossip reveals its use as a control mechanism against women (Bleek, 1976; Deal, 1998; Rysman, 1977; Watkins & Danzi, 1995). Studies of the role of gossip in witchcraft are of particular interest here. Accusations of witchcraft were not public in nature. Gossip between members of a community served as a way to make private accusations of witchcraft. Bleek (1976) uses gossip theory to explore accusations of witchcraft among the Kwahu of Ghana. He argues that witchcraft accusations, much like gossip, occurred between members of a social group and between close relatives, thus reinforcing social norms within the group. Because social groups and relatives were the perpetrators of this gossip, it could then also be used as a form of social exclusion, maintaining the impermeability of group boundaries. This with Gluckman s (1963) view on the group function of gossip, as he argues there is no easier way of putting a stranger in his place than by beginning to gossip: this shows him conclusively that he does not belong (p. 313). This helps to explain why accusations of witchcraft are not expressed to outsiders. Furthermore, to be accused of witchcraft was an indication of social prominence, much like those who are targets of gossip (Bleek, 1976). The fact that both witchcraft accusations and gossip are typically directed toward those with high social standing supports Paine s (1967) view that gossip is a form of information management that can be used to advance one s own selfinterests. Viewing accusations of witchcraft as a form of gossip helps to bridge the gap between those who believe gossip functions solely as a form of social control within groups and those who think gossip is an individual attempt to gain social standing. Much research supports the idea that gossip is primarily attributed to women (Brogan, 1925; Eder & Enke, 1991; Goodwin, 1980; Kuttler, Parker, & La Greca, 2002; Proveda & Crim, 1975; Rysman, 1977). Brogan (1925) was among the first to show that gossip was typically feminine. His general worseness scale reported that both men and women rank gossip worse for women than for men. Gossip was also listed in the frequency scales as the most frequent practice among women, further supporting that gossip is ascribed to women. However, just because women are perceived as gossiping more than

9 Warber 9 men does not mean that men do not gossip. Perhaps because of the female connotation associated with gossip, men use terms other than gossip to describe their behavior. Another important factor that helps distinguish differences between the gossip of men and women is the topics about which each gender gossips. An examination of peasants in Richland Park, St. Vincent, British West Indies looked at gossip as a speech act. This performance-centered approach to gossip revealed differences between what men and women gossip about. Men gossiped primarily about how well other men display their masculinity. Some topics of men s gossip included athletics, women, getting work and learning a trade, the number of babies that they had, and how many friends they had. Furthermore, men talked about women in terms of the likelihood that they would engage in sexual intercourse and violate relationship norms (Abrahams, 1970). These topics are consistent with traditional male gender roles, and with the display of resources and sexual infidelity that typically induce sexual jealousy in males (Buss, 2000). Women, on the other hand, gossiped about how other women kept their households in order, childrearing, and the treatment of her man (Abrahams, 1970). These topics are parallel to traditional women gender roles and with the topics that typically elicit sexual jealousy in women, including physical appearance and emotional fidelity (Buss, 2000). In arguing for gender differences in topics of gossip, it is helpful to look at gossip among adolescents because during adolescence, children are socialized into a sexually charged environment. Children gossip beginning around the time they begin to talk, and by the age of three, will talk about the traits and actions of non-present children (Fine, 1977, p. 181). Eder and Enke (1991) examined the structure of adolescent gossip and found that gossip among this group promotes the expression of negative evaluations, particularly among girls. They found that the most typical type of gossip involved an explicit evaluation of the target. Although they were looking at the structure of gossip in terms of the identification and evaluation of the target, the topics of adolescent gossip were also observed. The content of adolescent gossip revealed that girls were gossiping about the physical appearance and reputation of other girls. In other words, it seems that girls are gossiping about what they believe boys want regarding the physical appearance of a girl. Furthermore, it appears that girls, more often than boys, gossip out of jealousy. For instance, one sixth grade girl asserted, other girls are jealous of her because

10 Warber 10 she s pretty and all the boys like her. In a study of preadolescents, Kuttler et al. (2002) reinforced the notion that girls gossip when they are jealous by reporting that girls, in particular, were apt to assume that those who gossip spread false information because they are jealous of the target. Boys, in contrast, seem to be gossiping about other boys in regard to dominance, ability, and achievements. For example, the boys in Eder and Enke s (1991) study on the structure of adolescent gossip seemed to gossip about the athletic abilities of other boys. Also, boys gossip tended to include more positive evaluations than girls gossip. If females gossip about the physical appearance and reputation of other females and males gossip about the abilities and resources of other males, then it is possible to conclude that each sex is gossiping about what they believe the opposite sex desires. This is consistent with the evolutionary perspective on sexual jealousy, which argues that each sex is jealous of what they perceive as a desirable characteristic in a competitor for a mate (Buss, 2000). Gender differences in gossip can also be explained in part by looking at the use of direct and indirect forms of aggression. From an evolutionary standpoint, boys are more likely than girls to engage in direct forms of aggression such as physical violence, whereas girls are more apt to use indirect forms of aggression including gossip. Because boys are typically more physically dominant, they use more direct aggression. Girls, on the other hand, are physically weaker and less dominant, and as such must rely on alternate channels of emotional expression (Scheler, 1961; Underwood, 2003). Gossip is considered indirect aggression because the victim is not present, and the noxious stimuli are delivered via the negative reactions of others (Richardson & Green, 1997, p.173). Stirling (1956) supports gossip as a form of indirect aggression by arguing that gossip acts as a generalized catharsis of hostile aggression (p. 262). Richardson and Green (1999) also found differences in the use of covert aggression among adults. They reported that women were more likely to use indirect aggression rather than direct aggression. If women use indirect forms of aggression as a means of establishing dominance, then it follows that women would have a higher tendency to participate in gossip than men would, and might likely use gossip as a way to disparage the reputation of sexual rivals that elicit interpersonal jealousy. Men, in contrast, might be more direct in expressing their jealousy, and as such, would not have the need to use gossip as an outlet.

11 Warber 11 It has been argued that, in the social system of adolescent girls, reputation is gained (or lost) via the manipulation of information about other people (Eyre, Hoffman, & Millstein, 1998; Goodwin, 1980; Proveda & Crim, 1975). Gossip seems to be the weapon of choice for girls attempting to regulate information about each other. This use of informal social control leads to tighter cliques among girls than boys. Reputation among girls seems dependent on how a girl relates to boys, and as such, has implications for the public assessment of her social-sex role in terms of her social identity. Boys, in contrast, have reputations based on the public assessment of their achieved roles, and are not directly related to their interactions with the opposite sex (Proveda & Crim, 1975). The evidence on gossip as a form of covert aggression used primarily by women supports the notion that women might have a higher propensity to gossip than men. Looking at gender differences in gossip content seems to indicate that men and women are gossiping most about those who are similar in age and gender. Women seem to be gossiping about the physical appearance of other women, while men seem to be gossiping about the dominance and resources of other men. Based on this support, the following hypotheses are being asserted: H4: Women gossip more than men do. H5a: Women prefer to hear gossip about the physical appearance of other women. H5b: Men prefer to hear gossip about the achievements of other men. Interpersonal Jealousy. The evolutionary perspective argues that jealousy serves as a coping device, passed down over time, to communicate commitment to a partner when a relationship becomes threatened by a real or imagined third party (Buss, 2000; Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992; Buunk, Angleitner, Oubaid, & Buss, 1996; Buunk & Bringle, 1987; Buunk & Hupka, 1987). In this respect, jealousy evolved as a defense against infidelity and abandonment and served as an adaptive response to a recurrent problem of survival and reproduction, much along the lines of natural selection. Consequently, men developed jealousy to protect the continuation of their genes, while women developed jealousy to defend against the loss of resources. Gender Differences in Interpersonal Jealousy.

12 Warber 12 One of the most basic gender differences regarding jealousy is that men are more disturbed by sexual infidelity, whereas women are more distressed by emotional breaches of fidelity. Women are more disturbed by emotional infidelity because it threatens the bond of the relationship, and thus the economic stability of the partnership. In comparison, men s focus on sexual infidelity is more prominent because sexual breaches compromise the certainty of paternity (Buss, 2000; Buss, Larsen, & Westen, 1996; Buss, Larsen, Westen, and Semmelroth, 1992). Though literature, drama, and movies usually depict men as being the more jealous sex, in reality men and women experience nearly identical levels of jealousy. However, profound differences can be found in the psychological components of jealousy. Buss (2000) argues that men and women have different mating strategies. Women mate for long-term purposes while men tend to mate on a short-term basis. When it comes to breaches in fidelity, women place far more importance on emotional fidelity, or the threat that support and resources will be transferred to another mate than men who focus primarily on sexual fidelity, suggesting that the events that trigger jealousy may differ between genders. Buss asserts that the root of sexual jealousy for men is the risk of paternity uncertainty and for women, it is the threat of loss of commitment and resources. Studies reported by Buss (2000) show that up to 63% of men compared to only 13% of women find sexual infidelity more disturbing whereas 87% of women and only 37% of men find emotional infidelity more disturbing. These results have been found cross-culturally suggesting that it is a universal difference. One reason why men and women may view infidelity differently is that they define the term differently. Men define infidelity in terms of sexual breaches whereas women provide a definition that is broad ranging and includes emotional as well as sexual breaches (Buss, 2000). Though gender differences in interpersonal jealousy have been established and replicated throughout the literature, hypotheses regarding gender differences in jealousy are being advanced in an attempt to draw connections between one s tendency to gossip and one s level of interpersonal jealousy. If gender differences in interpersonal jealousy are supported, and each gender gossips about what they believe the opposite gender desires in a mate, then evidence for gossip as a coping strategy for sexual and

13 Warber 13 emotional jealousy would be further supported. Based on the literature regarding gender differences in interpersonal jealousy, the following related hypotheses are advanced. H6a: Women report more emotional jealousy than sexual jealousy. H6b: Men report more sexual jealousy than emotional jealousy. H7a: Women report more emotional jealousy than men do. H7b: Men report more sexual jealousy than women do Gossip as a Coping Strategy for Interpersonal Jealousy. According to Buss and Dedden (1990), as genetic competitors, humans are programmed to disseminate disparaging information about sexual rivals. This was evidenced when they revealed that young adults were likely to derogate their sexual competitors. Perhaps then, gossip serves as a way to disseminate this disparaging information among those in our social groups, who also represent our most direct rivals. Support from the evolutionary frameworks of both jealousy and gossip seem to suggest that perhaps gossip functions as a coping mechanism for interpersonal jealousy, by allowing individuals to covertly expunge their emotions, seemingly without consequence. If gossip operates as a form of social control within groups, while simultaneously working at the individual level as a purposive behavior to protect one s self-interests, it would provide the ideal outlet for interpersonal jealousy, an often turbulent emotion that results from a perceived threat to a valued relationship. If the content of gossip between males and females differs, it is likely that they are gossiping about what they believe the opposite gender desires in a mate. If individuals are gossiping about what they believe the opposite gender desires, then they are likely gossiping as a way to cope with interpersonal jealousy. As such, the following hypothesis is purported. H8: The tendency to gossip is positively correlated with interpersonal jealousy. METHOD Sample Students enrolled in communication classes at a large southwestern university served as participants for this study (N = 208). The sample consisted of 125 women and 83 men, ranging in age from 18 to 49 (M = 21.26, SD = 3.46). The survey was offered as an opportunity for students in the

14 Warber 14 classes to receive extra credit for their participation in a research study. For a demographic breakdown of the sample, see tables 1A and 1B. Procedure Participants were addressed during communication classes, and time was allotted for filling out the survey during class. The only requirement of the survey was that participants be at least 18 years of age, and as such, all who were present were qualified to participate. Before completing the questionnaire, participant consent was obtained by the researcher. The survey took approximately 15 minutes to complete. After finishing the survey, the participants were debriefed as to the true nature of the study. Predictor Variables Both age and gender were determined by asking participants to report their age and their gender. Interpersonal jealousy was assessed using Mathes and Severa s (1981) Interpersonal Jealousy Scale. This 28-item measure includes items such as If admired someone of the opposite sex I would feel irritated, If were to become displeased about the time I spend with others, I would be flattered, and If I saw a picture of and an old date I would feel unhappy. Participants were asked to fill in the name of their current, past, or imaginary dating partner in the blanks, and to think about that person while completing that portion of the survey. The original 28 items of Mathes and Severa s (1981) Interpersonal Jealousy Scale did not yield good reliability. A rotated factor analysis using principal axis factoring and varimax with Kaiser normalization revealed 2 factors within the scale; 11 items measured general interpersonal jealousy (α =.89) and 2 items measured one s fear of partner infidelity (α =.72). To further assess jealousy, a multidimensional measure of jealousy designed by Buunk (1997) was used. This measure operationalizes jealousy from three different standpoints: reactive, preventative, and anxious. A rotated factor analysis of these items using principal axis factoring and varimax with Kaiser normalization indicated a clear breakdown of three factors. After multiple iterations, 4 items measured reactive/sexual jealousy (α =.84), 5 items measured preventative jealousy (α =.84), and 5 items measured anxious jealousy (α =.90). This scale is useful for measuring sexual and emotional

15 Warber 15 jealousy. The reactive jealousy scale clearly measures items related to sexual jealousy, and the preventative and anxious jealousy scales represent concepts regarding emotional jealousy. Items pertaining to reactive jealousy include How would you feel if your partner kissed someone else? and How would you feel if your partner discussed personal things with someone else? These items evaluate the extent to which one anticipates a negative affective response to various intimate and sexual behaviors of the partner (Buunk, 1997, p. 999). Preventative jealousy measures identify the degree to which one was inclined to prevent even innocent, superficial contact between the partner and members of the opposite sex (Buunk, 1997, p. 999). Items include I don t want my partner to meet too many people of the opposite sex, and I am quite possessive with respect to my partner. Finally, anxious jealousy items pertain to the frequency of worrying over the potential sexual and intimate contact of the partner with someone of the opposite sex (Buunk, 1997, p. 999). Questions that measure anxious jealousy include I am afraid that my partner is sexually interested in someone else, and I am concerned about all the things that could happen if my partner meets members of the opposite sex. Though this measure was not designed to directly measure sexual and emotional jealousy per se, clear distinctions can be made between items reflecting sexual jealousy, and items reflection emotional jealousy. Sexual jealousy, because it was comprised of the same items that Buunk titled reactive jealousy, yielded the same reliability as the reactive jealousy items (α =.84). Items from the preventative and anxious jealousy scales were combined to form an 8-item emotional jealousy measure (α =.87). For a list of the final items used in analysis, refer to table 2. Criterion Variables Participants tendency to gossip was measured using the Gossip Tendency Questionnaire (GTQ). The GTQ is a 20-item measure designed to assess the propensity to gossip (Nevo, Nevo, & Derech- Zehavi, 1994). The GTQ contains items such as I tend to talk to my friends about relationships between men and women, I like analyzing with a friend the compatibility of various couples, and I like to tell friends about the interesting details concerning other people.

16 Warber 16 The GTQ was designed to break down into 5 factors. A rotated factor analysis using principal axis factoring and varimax with Kaiser normalization from this sample, however, revealed only 4 solid factors; gossip about personal appearance (α =.82), achievements (α =.77), social information (α =.85), and a one-item measure regarding the reading of gossip columns in newspapers/magazines. The social information items can be further reduced to a purely romantic gossip scale, with items that address gossip about the romantic affairs of others (α =.81) In order to explore gender differences in gossip content from an evolutionary perspective, questions were designed to determine the topics that each gender prefers to hear gossip about, as well as who they prefer to gossip about. First, men and women were asked to answer who they prefer to hear information about, men or women. Then, they were asked whom they most prefer to talk about. Both men and women were asked to rank from 1(most) to 6 (least) the topics they like to hear gossip about regarding men and women. Topics included (a) job, (b) physical appearance, (c) sexuality, (d) romantic relationships, (e) personality, and (f) material possessions. Additionally, kinship ties were tested by asking participants who they most like to hear about and gossip about in regard to the gender and age of gossip targets. Ages were grouped together by (a) 18-25, (b) 26-33, (c) 34-41, (d) 42-49, and (e) 50+ years. RESULTS Based on evolutionary theory, H1 predicted that people would prefer to hear gossip about those in their own age group. In order to determine whether individuals prefer to hear gossip about those in their own age group, cross tabulations, frequencies, and a chi-square were run. Of the 208 participants, 198 (95.15%) were between the ages of 18 and 25. Of those 198, 189 (95.45%) reported that they prefer to hear gossip about those between the ages of 18 and 25. A chi-square analysis revealed that participants between the ages of 18 and 25 prefer to hear gossip about others in their age group, χ²(6, N = 197) = , p <.001. The proportion of yearold individuals that prefer to hear gossip about those in their own age group (P =.95) differed significantly from the hypothesized value of.16, providing support for H1a. The proportion of year-old individuals that prefer to hear gossip about those in their own age group (P =.50) did not differ

17 Warber 17 from the expected value of.16, χ²(6, N = 6) =.00, n.s. Regarding the year-olds in the sample that prefer to hear about other in their age group, χ²(6, N = 2) =.00, n.s., the proportion of those who prefer to hear about those in their own age group (P =.50) did not differ from the expected value of.16. Finally, the proportion of participants between the ages of 42 and 49 (P =.00) did not differ significantly from the predicted value of.16 in regard to the age of people they prefer to hear gossip about, χ²(6, N = 2) =.00, n.s. Mixed results were found regarding H1b, which argued that individuals prefer to hear gossip about those of their own gender. Women reported that they prefer to hear gossip about women more than gossip about men. In the sample, 56.8% of the women reported that they prefer to hear gossip about other women, while 43.2% of women reported they prefer to hear gossip about men. Men, however, reported overwhelmingly that they too prefer to hear gossip about women more than gossip about men. Of the men, 86.7% reported that they prefer to hear gossip about women, while only 13.3% of the men reported that they prefer to hear gossip about other men. A chi-square test was run to asses whether individuals prefer to hear gossip about those of their own gender. Results indicate no preference for women regarding which gender they like to hear gossip about, χ²(2, N = 125) = 2.31, n.s. The proportion of women that prefer to hear gossip about other women (P =.56) did not differ significantly from the predicted value of.50. Men, on the other hand, were expected to prefer to hear gossip about other men. The opposite was revealed. Men prefer to hear gossip about women χ²(2, N = 83) = 44.83, p <.001, more than gossip about men. The proportion of men who prefer to hear gossip about women (P =.86) differed significantly from the hypothesized value of.50. Therefore, H1b was not supported. An exploratory chi-square revealed that, when men and women were combined, individuals reported they prefer to hear gossip about women rather than about men, χ²(2, N = 208) = 29.25, p <.001, meaning that the proportion of individuals who prefer to hear gossip about women (P =.68) differs significantly from the expected value of.50. Results for H1c were similar to the results found for H1b. Regarding whether individuals prefer to gossip about those of their own gender, 51.2 % of women reported that they prefer to gossip about other women compared to 48.8% of women who prefer to gossip about men. Contrary to what was

18 Warber 18 predicted, men also reported that they prefer to gossip about women rather than other men. Of the men in the sample, 96.4% reported that they prefer to gossip about women, compared to only 3.6% who reported that they prefer to gossip about other men. A chi-square was conducted to further assess whether individuals prefer to gossip about those of their own gender. Results suggest no preference for women regarding which gender they prefer to gossip about, χ²(2, N = 125) =.072, n.s., and that men prefer to gossip about women, χ²(2, N = 83) = 71.43, p <.001. The proportion of women who prefer to gossip about other women (P =.51) did not differ significantly from the theoretically expected value of.50. The proportion of men that prefer to gossip about women (P =.96) does, however, differ significantly from the hypothesized value of.50. This result is the opposite of what was predicted; that men would prefer to gossip about other men. These results do not provide support for H1c. An exploratory chi-square test revealed that, when men and women were combined, individuals reported that they prefer to gossip about women more than gossip about men, χ²(2, N = 208) = 30.76, p <.001. The proportion of people that prefer to gossip about women (P =.69) differs significantly from the hypothesized value of.50. Hypothesis 2a revealed that individuals prefer to hear gossip about those who are similar to them, rather than different from them. In the sample, 66.3% of participants reported that they prefer to hear information about those who are similar to them, as compared to 33.2% who reported that they prefer to hear information about those who are different from them. A chi-square test was run to determine whether individuals prefer to hear gossip about those who are similar to them, rather than different from them. Results indicate that people prefer to hear gossip about those who are similar to them significantly more than gossip about those who are different from them, χ²(2, N = 207) = 23.00, p <.001. The proportion of individuals who prefer to hear gossip about those who are similar to them (P =.66) differs significantly that the predicted value of.50, providing strong support for H2a. Similar results were found for H2b. Of the participants, 58.2% reported that they prefer to talk about those who are similar to them, compared to 41.3% that reported they prefer to talk about those who are different from them.

19 Warber 19 A chi-square analysis revealed that people do prefer to gossip about those who are similar to them, rather than about those who are different from them, χ²(2, N = 207) = 5.91, p <.05. The proportion of individuals who prefer to gossip about those who are similar to them (P =.58) differs from the theoretically expected value of.50, lending support to H2b. Hypothesis 3 predicted that individuals gossip most about their close friends. Participants were asked to rank from 1 (most) to 5 (least) the groups that they gossip about the most. The five groups included (a)close friends, (b)family members, (c)enemies, (d)co-workers, and (e)celebrities. Of the participants sampled, 68.8% ranked my close friends as the number one group they like to gossip about, followed by 14.4 % that reported they like to gossip about their family members the most. The average rank of close friends (M = 1.45, SD =.83) outranked family members (M = 2.46, SD = 1.06), enemies (M = 3.46, SD = 1.16), co-workers (M = 3.64, SD = 1.11), and celebrities (M = 3.98, SD = 1.14), who received the lowest rank out of 5 among participants. Kendall s coefficient of concordance, W, was used to determine agreement in the rankings provided by the participants. The obtained Kendall s coefficient was.42. The test of significance for W indicated that the agreement on the ranks exceeded chance levels, χ²(4, N = 197) = , p <.001. This provides support for the hypothesis that people gossip most about their close friends. In order to determine if women gossip more than men (H4), several independent sample t-tests were run to identify mean differences. All five gossip factors were run against both men and women, and results indicate that women gossip significantly more than men on four of the five gossip factors. Results revealed significant gender differences between men (M = 3.30, SD = 1.53) and women (M = 4.03, SD = 1.50), t(206) = -3.41, p <.001, two-tailed, regarding gossip about personal appearance. In regard to gossip about social information, women (M = 4.56, SD = 1.12) scored significantly higher than men (M = 3.85, SD = 1.17), t(206) = -4.37, p <.001, two-tailed. Women (M = 4.46, SD = 1.25) also scored significantly higher than men (M = 3.52, SD = 1.32), t(206) = -5.14, p <.001, two-tailed, on the subscale of social information that measured purely romantic gossip. In regard to reading gossip columns in newspapers/magazines, women (M = 3.63, SD = 2.13) scored significantly higher than men (M = 1.71, SD = 1.08) t(206), p <.001. The only factor of gossip on which men (M = 3.03, SD = 1.30) scored higher

20 Warber 20 than women (M = 2.83, SD = 1.13) t(206) = 1.20, n.s., two-tailed, was gossip about achievements. With the exception of gossip about achievements, women were shown to gossip significantly more than men, providing support for H4. Hypotheses 5a and 5b addressed the gossip topics that each gender likes to hear about regarding those of the same gender. Participants were asked to rank from 1 (most) to 6 (least) the topics that they like hearing most about regarding both those of the same gender, and those of the opposite gender. The topics included (a)job, (b)physical appearance, (c)sexuality, (d)romantic relationships, (e)personality, and (f)material possessions. Frequencies and average ranks were used to determine how each topic ranked. When women hear information about other women (H5a), they reported that they like to hear most about her personality (M = 2.21, SD = 1.34), followed by physical appearance (M = 2.68, SD = 1.49), romantic relationships (M = 3.03, SD = 1.44), job (M = 4.27, SD = 1.63), sexuality (M = 4.44, SD = 1.8), and lastly, material possession (M = 4.45, SD = 1.46). When men hear information about other men (H5b), they reported that they like to hear most about his personality (M = 1.77, SD =.92), followed by job (M = 2.30, SD = 1.37), material possession (M = 2.70, SD = 1.25), romantic relationships (M = 4.27, SD =.92), physical appearance (M = 4.61, SD = 1.18), and finally, sexuality (M = 5.23, SD = 1.01). Hypotheses 6a predicted that women would score higher on emotional jealousy than on sexual jealousy. This hypothesis was not supported. Simple means and two independent sample t-tests were run to determine whether men and women scored higher on emotional or sexual jealousy. Data revealed that women actually scored higher on sexual jealousy (M = 5.91, SD = 1.14) than on emotional jealousy (M = 2.72, SD = 1.28). Hypothesis 6b predicted that men would score higher on sexual jealousy than on emotional jealousy. This hypothesis was supported. Independent sample t-tests were also run to determine if gender differences in sexual and emotional jealousy were present. Men scored higher on sexual jealousy (M = 5.64, SD = 1.16) than on emotional jealousy (M = 2.79, SD = 1.18). In order to determine if women reported more emotional jealousy than men (H7a), an independent samples t-test was conducted. Results revealed no significant difference between men (M = 2.79, SD = 1.18) and women (M = 2.72, SD = 1.28), t(206) =.41, n.s., on emotional jealousy, providing no support for H7a. A two independent samples t-test was also run to determine whether men reported

21 Warber 21 more sexual jealousy than women (H7b). No significant difference between men (M = 5.64, SD = 1.16) and women (M = 5.91, SD = 1.14), t(206) = -1.63, n.s. was found. Hypothesis 8 argued that the tendency to gossip is positively correlated with interpersonal jealousy. In order to determine if associations exist, correlations were run between different jealousy factors and gossip factors. Several significant correlations were revealed. The 11 items that were factored from Mathes and Severa s (1981) Interpersonal Jealousy Scale were positively associated with gossip about personal appearance r(206) =.256, p <.01, two-tailed. The 11 interpersonal jealousy items also positively correlated with gossip about achievements r(206) =.240, p <.01, two-tailed, gossip about social information r(206) =.208, p <.01, two-tailed, with purely romantic gossip r(206) =.175, p <.05, two-tailed, and with the reading of gossip columns in newspapers/magazines, r(206) =.185, p <.01, twotailed. Additionally, the 2 items that measured a partner s fear of infidelity, also drawn from the Mathes and Severa (1981) Interpersonal Jealousy Scale, correlated with gossip factors. Specifically, fear of partner infidelity correlated positively with gossip about achievements r(206) =.139, p <.05, two-tailed. The 2 item measure of fear of partner infidelity did not correlate with gossip about personal appearance, r(206) =.118, p =.091, two-tailed, nor did it correlate with gossip about social information, r(206) =.136, p =.051, two-tailed, purely romantic gossip, r(206) =.131, p =.059, two-tailed, or the reading of gossip columns in newspapers/magazines, r(206) =.121, p =.082, two-tailed. Correlations were also run between the sexual jealousy scale and emotional jealousy scale that were adapted from Buunk s (1997) multidimensional measure of interpersonal jealousy and the different gossip factors of physical appearance, achievements, social information, romantic gossip, and the reading of gossip columns in newspapers/magazines. Sexual jealousy correlated positively with gossip about physical appearance, r(206) =.171, p <.05, two-tailed, gossip about social information, r(206) =.193, p <.01, two-tailed, romantic gossip, r(206) =.191, p <.01, two-tailed, and with the reading of gossip columns in newspapers/magazines, r(206) =.137, p <.05, two-tailed. Sexual jealousy did not, however, correlate with gossip about achievements, r(206) =.129, p =.063, two-tailed. Emotional jealousy was found to be positively associated with gossip about physical appearance, r(206) =.148, p <.05, twotailed, gossip about achievements, r(206) =.226, p <.01, two-tailed, and with the reading of gossip

22 Warber 22 columns in newspapers/magazines, r(206) =.229, p <.01, two-tailed. Emotional jealousy did not correlate with gossip about social information r(206) =.134, p =.054, two-tailed, or with purely romantic gossip, r(206) =.116, p =.097, two-tailed. Overall, H8 was supported, as correlations between interpersonal jealousy and gossip were widespread. For detailed information of correlations between interpersonal jealousy and gossip, see table 3. DISCUSSION The results from H1a are consistent with evolutionary theory, which suggests that humans will be most interested in information about those who are similar in age to them. This is likely because those who are similar in age represent our most direct competition in terms of resources. Regarding mate selection in particular, those who are similar in age constitute our greatest threat in terms of securing a mate, and reproduction. Hypotheses 1b and 1c revealed conflicting results. It was predicted that individuals would prefer to hear gossip about and gossip about those of the same gender. This was not true for women in this study. Men, however, reported overwhelmingly that they prefer both to hear gossip and to gossip about women, rather than other men. This was opposite of what was predicted, that men would prefer to hear gossip about, as well as gossip about other men. Hypotheses 2a and 2b, which purported individuals prefer to hear gossip about, and gossip about those who are similar to them, rather than different than them, were supported and are consistent with the evolutionary perspective that argues individuals will prefer to engage in gossip about those who are similar, as opposed to those who are different. Arguably, this is because those who are similar to us are our closest competitors within our social environment. By attaining and dispersing information about those in our social circles, we become better able to gauge our relative standing within that environment. The fact that individuals ranked their close friends as those they like to gossip about most (H3) supports the idea that information about those within our social circles is a valued commodity that can be acquired and exchanged as a form of social control within groups. In this regard, social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) may serve as an appropriate theoretical framework for future research regarding gossip. Social identity theory argues that people form a sense of self due in part to the groups to which