Daily Talk Shows as Virtual Gossip Communities

doi:10.1017/9781108131797.043

42 - Daily Talk Shows as Virtual Gossip Communities

from Part X - Evolution and the Media

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 March 2020

Edited by

Will Reader and

Lance Workman: Affiliation:
University of South Wales
Will Reader: Affiliation:
Sheffield Hallam University
Jerome H. Barkow: Affiliation:
Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia

Book contents

Get access

Summary

During the 1990s, the daily talk show became a popular television format in Germany as well as in other countries; stations worldwide began to fill many hours of afternoon viewing with such programming, which typically involves the participation of one or more hosts and a number of invited guests, often ordinary people, who provide expertise, recount an event, or simply share their point of view on a given topic.

In addressing the evolutionary significance of gossip, Barkow (1992 , p. 628) hypothesized a classification of relevant topics (“relative standing and anything likely to affect it, control over resources, sexual activities, births and deaths, current alliances/friendships and political involvements, health, and reputation about reliability as a partner in social exchange”), as well as the categories of people who are the subjects of gossip (“relatives, rivals, mates, offspring, partners in social exchange, and the very high ranking”). In this study, these two classifications were tested against and compared with a quantitative content analysis of the talk show topics for 1996 derived from the main daily talk shows on four of the five major German television networks.

All of the hypothesized categorical topics and persons were present, but it was necessary to add three additional topics (“family business,” “aesthetics,” and “dangers”) and two categories of people (“me” and “animals”; pets were usually classified as people rather than topics as they frequently tend to be considered as family members).

Since the number of viewers for each episode was also coded, the effect or success of the various topics and hosts could be numerically calculated. The host is the single most important factor affecting number of viewers. If we assume that this stability reflects a strong core of regular viewers, it would appear that we are looking at the formation of relatively stable virtual gossip groups attendant to a central figure, the talk show host.

This chapter also characterizes the differences between everyday conversation and gossip and, in an effort to further understand the function of mass media, it addresses the highly ritualized nature of the television talk show.

Keywords

gossip mental rehearsal talk show theory of mind

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior , pp. 517 - 526

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108131797.043 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aebli, H. (1981). Denken: Das Ordnen des Tuns, Band II: Denkprozesse. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar

Aebli, H. (1993). Denken: Das Ordnen des Tuns, Band I: Kognitive Aspekte der Handlungstheorie. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar

Barkow, J. (1989). Darwin, Sex, and Status: Biological Approaches to Mind and Culture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

Barkow, J. (1992). Beneath new culture is old psychology: Gossip and social stratification. In Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J., eds., The Adapted Mind. Evolutionary Psychology and the Evolution of Culture. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 627–637.Google Scholar

Barkow, J., O’Gorman, R., & Rendell, L. (2012). Are the new mass media subverting cultural transmission? Review of General Psychology, 16(2), 121–133.Google Scholar

Baumeister, R. F., Zhang, L., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Gossip as cultural learning. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 111–121.Google Scholar

Buss, D. M. (1992). Mate-preference mechanisms: Consequences for partner choice and intersexual competition. In Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J., eds., The Adapted Mind. Evolutionary Psychology and the Evolution of Culture. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 249–266.Google Scholar

Buss, D. M. (1998). The psychology of human mate selection: Exploring the complexity of the strategic repertoire. In Crawford, C. & Krebs, D. L., eds., Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology: Ideas, Issues, and Applications. Mahwah, NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 405–429.Google Scholar

Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J., eds., The Adapted Mind. Evolutionary Psychology and the Evolution of Culture. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 163–228.Google Scholar

Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2000). Evolutionary psychology and the emotions. In Lewis, M. & Haviland-Jones, J., eds., Handbook of Emotions, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford, pp. 91–115.Google Scholar

Davis, H., & McLeod, S. L. (2003). Why humans value sensational news – An evolutionary perspective. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 208–216.Google Scholar

Dunbar, R. I. M. (1996). Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar

Dunbar, R. I. M. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 100–110.Google Scholar

Giles, D. C. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psychology, 4(3), 279–305.Google Scholar

Hippel, K. (1993). Parasoziale Interaktion als Spiel. Bemerkungen zu einer interaktionistischen Fernsehtheorie. Montage/AV, 2(2), 127–145.Google Scholar

Keller, K., Scholmerich, A., & Eibl-Eibelsfeldt, I. (1988). Communication patterns in adult–infant interactions in Western and non-Western cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19(4), 427–445.Google Scholar

Leslie, A. M. (1994). ToMM, ToBy, and agency: Core architecture and domain specification. In Hirschfeld, L. A. & Gelman, S. A., eds., Mapping the Mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 119–148.Google Scholar

Mast, C. (1978). Politische Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchung einer Parteisendung im Zweiten Deutschen Fernsehen. Osnabrück: A. Fromm Verlag.Google Scholar

Orians, G. H., & Heerwagen, J. H. (1992). Evolved Responses to Landscapes. In Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J., eds., The Adapted Mind. Evolutionary Psychology and the Evolution of Culture. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 555–579.Google Scholar

Perky, C. W. (1910). An experimental study of imagination. American Journal of Psychology, 21, 422–452.Google Scholar

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1956). The Child’s Conception of Space. New York: The Norton Library.Google Scholar

Pinker, S. (1997). How the Mind Works. New York/London: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar

Sack, M. (1985). Stammtisch des Fernsehens. Die Talkshow – Diskussionsrunde, Gesprächsversammlung, Gruppeninterview oder “gesitteter Klamauk”?Die Zeit, 40, 32.Google Scholar

Schlosser, A. (1998). TV-Genre Talk Show: Eine medienwissenschaftliche Studie. Unpublished thesis, TU Berlin.Google Scholar

Schwab, F., & Schwender, C. (2010). The descent of emotions in media: Darwinian perspectives. In Döveling, K., von Scheve, C., & Konijn, E., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Emotions and Mass Media. New York: Routledge, pp. 15–36.Google Scholar

Schwender, C. (2006). Medien und Emotionen. Wiesbaden: DUV.Google Scholar

Thornhill, R. (1998). Darwinian aesthtetics. In Crawford, C. & Krebs, D. L., eds., Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology: Ideas, Issues, and Applications. Mahwah, NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 543–572.Google Scholar

Voland, E., & Grammer, K., eds. (2003). Evolutionary Aesthetics. Berlin/New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar

Wert, S. R., & Salovey, P. (2004). Introduction to the special issue of gossip. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 76–77.Google Scholar

Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90(2), 245–271.Google Scholar

Book contents

42 - Daily Talk Shows as Virtual Gossip Communities

Summary

Keywords

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive