Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T16:58:02.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

42 - Daily Talk Shows as Virtual Gossip Communities

from Part X - Evolution and the Media

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2020

By
Clemens Schwender
Edited by
Lance Workman ,
Will Reader  and
Jerome H. Barkow
Lance Workman
Affiliation:
University of South Wales
Will Reader
Affiliation:
Sheffield Hallam University
Jerome H. Barkow
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia
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

gossipmental rehearsaltalk showtheory of mind
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior , pp. 517 - 526
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

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×