Of Tabloids and Family Secrets: The Evolutionary

Psychology of Gossip

By:Alex Reivitis

Krystal GamezKyle Glassman

IntroductionIntroduction

• Levin & Arluke (1987): Social learning & Social Comparison.

• Crawford (1998): enhances fitness.

• Alexander et al. (1979): Helps us predict the. behaviors of others.

• Trivers (1971): Detection of cheaters.

• Boehm (1999): neutralizing dominance.

Hypothesis #1Hypothesis #1

• Participants should express greater interest in gossip about others of the same gender and approximately the same age as themselves

•Participants should show greater interest in positive information about allies (e.g friends and relatives) than in positive information about non-allies.

Hypothesis #2Hypothesis #2

Participants should be more likely to spread positive information about allies and negative information about non-allies.

Hypothesis #3Hypothesis #3

Experiment 1Experiment 1

• Participants: 128, (61 male, 67 female). • Materials:

– 12 articles about celebrities from tabloids in 1996. – Divided by age group of the celebrities.

• Procedure: – Participants ranked each article based on their interest.– They disclosed their age, gender, and occupation.

Celebrities Featured in Celebrities Featured in TabloidsTabloids

• Under age 35– Robert Downey, Jr.– John F. Kennedy, Jr.– Courtney Cox– Oksana Baiul

• Ages 36-55– Don Johnson– Kelsey Grammar– Christie Brinkley– Jamie Lee Curtis

• Over age 56– Frank Sinatra– The Frugal Gourmet– Barbara Walters– Jane Wyman

Experiment 1: ResultsExperiment 1: Results

• Most participants under the age of 30 selected tabloids about celebrities under the age of 36.

• Most participants who were over the age of 30 showed the opposite pattern.

• Individuals tended to be more interested in celebrities their own age and gender. – John F. Kennedy Jr. (exception to rule).

• Results support the hypothesis #1.

Experiment 2Experiment 2

• Participants: 83, (39 males, 44 females).• Materials:

– 12 hypothetical gossip scenarios. – Themes of the scenarios included: promiscuity, drug abuse,

sexual infidelity, drunken behavior, etc.• Procedure:

– Participants read each scenario and answered two questions: • 1. how likely he/she would be to seek more information about situation.• 2. how likely he/she would be to pass along the information.

Experiment 2: ResultsExperiment 2: Results

• Positive information about non-allies was not considered interesting.

• Positive information about allies was spread quickly. • Girls were significantly more interested in the

happenings of celebrity girls (gender differences). • People found information about their “friends” most

interesting.

DiscussionDiscussion

• People actively seek information about others that will be most useful in social competition.

• We seek exploitable information about people of high status and non-allies.

• Evolution is not the only explanation. • Need more research to determine evolutionary

influence.

Critical ReviewCritical Review

• Pros.• All three hypotheses

were supported by findings.

• Sex differences in terms of what tabloids were considered “interesting”.

• The JFK exception.

• Cons• Sample size (small)

• Self-Report,• No causation.

• Evolutionary adaptations are difficult to scientifically prove.

Who do you find yourself Who do you find yourself GossipingGossiping about? about?