Sex Roles, Vo[. 12, Nos.

3/4, 1985

An Exploratory Analysis of Sex

Differences in G o s s i p 1
Jack Levin and Arnold Arluke
Northeastern UniversiO,

This study examined sex differences in the quantity, targets, tone, and
topics o f gossip in the conversations o f 76 male and 120 f e m a l e college
students. Contrary to popular beliefs, results indicated that the gossip o f
men and women contained similarities as well as differences. The data
revealed that women spent more time gossiping than men and that women
were much more #kely than men to gossip about close friends and f a m i l y
members. However, no significant sex differences were uncovered
regarding the derogatory tone o f gossip and men and women were f o u n d to
gossip about m a n y o f the same topics.

Despite a growing interest in gossip at all levels of society, there continues to

be a scarcity of empirical research that focuses directly on characteristics of
gossip and gossipers. The few empirical studies that have been conducted
have generally taken place in non-Western cultures (Cox, 1970; Haviland,
1977; Szwed, 1966) or have been concerned with very specialized issues,
such as the mass media (Levin & Kimmel, 1977). On a descriptive level, we
know very little about the frequency, topics, and targets of gossiping and,
on a relational level, about the correlates of gossip. The literature appears
to be rich with ideas but poor in research concerning gossip (Fine &
Rosnow, 1978; Rosnow & Fine, 1976).
Nonetheless, some beliefs about gossip and gossipers have assumed
the status of truisms in popular culture. In particular, there is widespread

tWe are grateful to Karl Seman, Marilla Ross, Robin Ansher, and Jack Schmaly, who served
as observers during the data-collection phase of the study, and to Richard Weiner, who conducted the statistical analysis. We also gratefully acknowledge the contributions made by Ralph
L. Rosnow.
281

0360-0025/85/0200-0281504.50/0 r~ 1985 Plenum PublishingCorporation

282

Levin and Arluke

agreement that women gossip more than men; yet the literature of social
science treats this relationship as a total myth or fabrication (Fine &
Rosnow, 1978; Rysman, 1977).
The purpose of this study was to examine sex differences in gossip
mongering. Specifically, data were sought regarding the quantity, topics,
targets, and tone of gossip as expressed in the conversations of male and
female college students.

METHOD
We content analyzed 194 instances of gossip as they occurred in the
conversations of 76 male and 120 female college students at a large
northeastern university. These data were collected by having trained
observers overhear conversations in the student lounge, a central area of the
university in which large numbers of undergraduates congregate to talk,
study, and read.
Seventeen male and eighteen female two- or three-person conversations were rated by either of two observers--one male, the other
f e m a l e - - w h o had been trained in the use of a recording sheet designed for
data collection purposes. All data were collected during a weekday interval
between 11 AM and 2 PM for a period of 8 weeks. To eliminate the
influence of the sex of the observer, the two observers each coded one-half
of the male and one-half of the female conversations. Observers always
collected data in the same section of the lounge, seated unobtrusively with
their backs to the group whose conversation they were recording. For the
sake of detail, conversations lasting less than 3 rain were eliminated from
consideration. During the 8-week data-collection phase of the study, there
were always large numbers of students in the lounge (almost always more
than 50), so that an observer's presence never aroused overt suspicion.
An instance of gossip was indicated by the presence of conversation
about any third person, whether present or absent from the group. The
observer noted the following information on the recording sheet about each
instance of gossip: (1) the amount of time spent discussing a target, (2) the
sex of the target, (3) the subject of gossip (friend, teacher, stranger,
celebrity, family member, politician, etc.), (4) the topic of gossip (sex,
dating, politics, sports, coursework, etc.), (5) the tone (positive, negative,
mixed), and (6) the presence or absence of the target. 2 in addition, each
conversation was coded for the following characteristics: (1) the number of

2Only 12 targets of gossip actually were present while others were gossiping about them.

Sex Differences in Gossip

283

group members, (2) the sex of group members, and (3) the percentage of
conversation devoted to gossip.
The category systems were developed by means of extensive pretesting
on conversations in the student lounge. The intercoder reliability of all
measures was tested by having the two observers independently code 10
instances of gossip from the same four conversations. Agreement between
observers ranged from 60 to 100%.

RESULTS A N D D I S C U S S I O N
Do women actually gossip more than men? In this sample of college
students, observers estimated that members of the female groups devoted a
larger proportion of their conversations to discussions of third persons than
did the members of the male groups. Specifically, 71% of the women's
conversations, compared with 64% of the m e n ' s conversations, were spent
gossiping about others (t = 4.56, df = 33, p < .01). This finding might be
regarded as consistent with previous research indicating that women are
more likely than men to reveal information about themselves (Jourard,
1971). Perhaps as an element of sex-role socialization, women are more
likely than men to disclose information about anyone, themselves as well as
others.
Before accepting the validity of the stereotype according to which
women are depicted as " g o s s i p s , " it should be noted that gossip also has a
more pejorative meaning in its popular usage. Many people associate gossip
with derogatory, even scandalous, information about the lives of others. It
is frequently in this context that the w o m a n is portrayed as a gossip.
If this popular view is correct, then female conversations should be
more derogatory than the conversations of their male counterparts. Our
results indicate instead that both male and female gossip contained the same
percentage of clearly positive (27%) and clearly negative (25%) references
to others. The difference between men and women was nonsignificant (x 2 =
.06, df = 2, p >.05).
Many of the evaluative references--both positive and negative--concerned personal habits, manners, appearance, and role performance. On
the negative side, students complained about a public display of " g r o s s "
personal habits such as "nose-picking" and " m a s t u r b a t i o n , " about
teachers who " d r o p things all the t i m e " and "fail to comment on p a p e r s , "
about the ostentatious behavior of a "Jewish-American Princess," about
rudeness on a commuter train, and about an "ugly girl" who walks
awkwardly.'Among the positive remarks, students praised a football player
who "played a good g a m e , " complimented a classmate who "always looks

284

Levin and Arluke

nice," spoke well of a relative who helped one of the group members to bed
"after a bad d r u n k , " and discussed the virtues of " a real nice looker."
Although male and female gossip did not differ with respect to tone,
significant sex differences were uncovered for characteristics of their targets
of gossip. Women were much more likely than men to gossip about close
friends and family members. Specifically, 56% of the women's targets but
only 2570 of the men's target were friends and relatives (x z = 16.96, df = 1,
p < .01). In contrast, men (46%) were more likely than women (16%) to
talk about celebrities including sports figures as well as about other
acquaintances on campus (x 2 = 23.05, df = 1, p < .01).
These sex differences in. characteristics of targets seem to reflect
traditional sex-role divisions, whereby women's activities were confined to
family and friendship networks, while men's activities involved instrumental, usually distant, relationships. In their gossip, then, women tended
to focus on individuals who participate in their social n e t w o r k s - mothers, sisters, best friends, and the like. Men, in contrast, maintained
their psychological distance by discussing strangers, acquaintances, and
media role models--disk jockeys, coaches, TV personalities, and members
of large classes on campus. In sex-role terms, the male students may have
been "afraid to get close."
Some sex differences were also found for topics of gossip, although
men and women were surprisingly similar in this respect. Women were
significantly more likely than men (19% versus 7%) to gossip about subjects
relating to c o u r s e w o r k - evaluations of teachers, how classmates performed
on exams and papers, other students' grades, and classmates who cheat (X2
= 5.01, df = 1, p < .01). On the other hand, men were significantly more
likely than women (12 versus 0 %) to talk about sports figures (X2 = 14.56,
df = l, p < .01). Both men and women focused about 16% of their topics
of conversation on dating and sex (X2 = 1.06, df = l, p > .05), and both
devoted approximately 12% to discussions of the personal appearance of
individuals they knew (X2 = 2.77, df = 1, p > .05).
It is possible that some of the sex differences we found regarding the
targets and topics of gossip may reflect differences between male and
female friendships. Waldrop and Halverson (1975), for example, report
that preadolescent boys are likely to have extensive peer relations, while
girls are likely to have intensive peer relations. In adolescence, these
differences in friendships continue, according to researchers, and seem to
influence the kinds of conversations which occur among same-sex friends.
In particular, group friends of males stress talk about goal- and actionoriented activity; intimate one-to-one friendships of females foster mutual
exploration and discussion of intrapersonal factors and the quality of
interpersonal relationships (Douvan & Adelson, 1966; Wright & Crawford,
1971).

Sex Differences in Gossip

285

P o p u l a r stereotypes n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g , o u r results suggest a c o m p l e x

picture r e g a r d i n g b o t h the q u a n t i t y a n d the q u a l i t y o f m a l e a n d female
gossip, a picture t h a t c o n f o r m s neither to the p o p u l a r belief n o r to
t r a d i t i o n a l images f o u n d in the l i t e r a t u r e o f social science. P r e s e n t results
indicate instead that the gossip o f men a n d w o m e n c o n t a i n s similarities as
well as differences. A t least on this college c a m p u s , w o m e n were m o r e likely
than men to c o n v e r s e a b o u t the activities a n d attitudes o f o t h e r p e o p l e . I f
this is gossip, then these w o m e n do i n d e e d gossip m o r e t h a n their m a l e
c o u n t e r p a r t s on c a m p u s , If, h o w e v e r , gossip is r e g a r d e d as o n l y d e r o g a t o r y
talk a b o u t others, then no significant differences in gossiping b e t w e e n m e n
and w o m e n can be said to have o c c u r r e d .
Targets o f gossip also v a r i e d by sex: consistent with their sex roles,
w o m e n focused m o r e on i n t i m a t e friends a n d relatives, whereas m e n t a l k e d
a b o u t distant a c q u a i n t a n c e s a n d m e d i a celebrities. A t the s a m e time,
however, men and w o m e n did gossip a b o u t m a n y o f the s a m e topics as well,
especially dating, sex, a n d p e r s o n a l a p p e a r a n c e . O n l y for the topics o f
sports a n d c o u r s e w o r k did significant differences b y sex emerge.
M a n y variables were held c o n s t a n t within the setting o f the present
study. A t the same time, there are u n c o n t r o l l e d factors which also m a y have
influenced our results. F o r e x a m p l e , o b s e r v e d students were self-selected.
To reduce observer bias, all c o n v e r s a t i o n s were r e c o r d e d for g r o u p s o f
students who sat within a specified section o f the lounge. Because we d i d
not c o n t r o l who c a m e to the lounge, h o w e v e r , we c a n n o t be sure t h a t the
a p p a r e n t sex differences o b t a i n e d in the present s t u d y were n o t a result o f
c o r r e l a t e d differences a s s o c i a t e d with l o u n g e use. F o r this r e a s o n , f u t u r e
research might try to replicate the findings in a n o t h e r c o n t e x t - - a waiting
r o o m in an a i r p o r t , for e x a m p l e , or d u r i n g the i n t e r m i s s i o n o f a play. ~
M o r e o v e r , the p u b l i c setting o f the lounge m a y h a v e i n h i b i t e d the
expression o f other, m o r e negative f o r m s o f gossip which s t u d e n t s reserve
for m o r e private o c c a s i o n s . To find out, the present s t u d y might be
replicated at a F r i d a y " b r o w n b a g " lunch or a wine and cheese p a r t y , where
d r i n k i n g serves to l o o s e n the i n h i b i t i o n s against expressing gossip in its
negative forms.

REFERENCES
Cox, B. What is Hopi gossip about? Information management and Hopi factions. MapT, 1970,
5, 88-98.

3We replicated the present study in an area of the campus center in which alcoholic beverages were
served and students listened to rock music. Contrary to initial expectations, however, results
obtained in this "bar" setting were almost identical to those obtained earlier in the student lounge.

286

Levin and Arluke

Douvan, E., & Adelson, J. The adolescent experience. New York: Wiley, 1966.
Fine, G. A., & Rosnow, R. L. Gossip, gossipers, gossiping_ Personality and SocialPsychology
Bulletin, 1978, 4, 161-168.
Haviland, J. B. Gossip as competition in Zinacantan. Journal of Communication, 1977, 26,
186-191.
Jourard, S. M. Self-disclosure: An experimental analysis of the transparent self. New York:
Wiley, 1971.
Levin, J., ~; Kimmel, A. J. Gossip columns: Media small talk., Journal of Communication,
1977, 26, 169-175.
Rosnow, R. L., & Fine, G. A. Rumor and gossip: The socialpsychology of hearsay. New York:
Elsevier, 1976.
Rysman, A. How the "gossip" became a woman. JournalofCommunication, 1977, 26, 176-180.
Szwed, J. F. Gossip, drinking, and social control: Consensus and communication in a Newfoundland parish. Ethnology, 1966, 5, 434-441.
Waldrop, M. F., & Halverson, C. F. Jr_, Intensive and extensive peer behavior: Longitudinal
and cross-sectional analyses. Child Development, 1975, 46, 19-26.
Wright, P. H., & Crawford, A. C. Argument and friendship: A close look and some second
thoughts. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1977, 2, 52-69.