Front. Psychol. Frontiers in Psychology Front. Psychol. 1664-1078 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01162 Psychology Original Research Better Than Its Reputation? Gossip and the Reasons Why We and Individuals With “Dark” Personalities Talk About Others Hartung Freda-Marie * Krohn Constanze Pirschtat Marie Faculty of Communication and Environment, Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences, Kamp-Lintfort, Germany

Edited by: Myriam Bechtoldt, EBS University of Business and Law, Germany

Reviewed by: Bianca Beersma, VU University Amsterdam, Netherlands; Benjamin K. Johnson, University of Florida, United States; Phil Kavanagh, ISN Psychology Pty Ltd., Australia

 *Correspondence: Freda-Marie Hartung freda-marie.hartung@hsrw.eu

This article was submitted to Personality and Social Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

 29 05 2019 2019 10 1162 23 11 2018 02 05 2019 Copyright © 2019 Hartung, Krohn and Pirschtat. 2019 Hartung, Krohn and Pirschtat

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Gossip is an ubiquitous phenomenon. Hearing information about others serves important social functions such as learning without direct interaction and observation. Despite important social functions gossip has a rather negative reputation. Therefore, the present online study focuses on the reasons why people gossip and how these reasons are related to personality (i.e., dark triad) and situational settings. Six distinct motives were identified that underlie gossip behavior: information validation, information gathering, relationship building, protection, social enjoyment, and negative influence. The most important motive was validating information about the gossip target followed by the motive to acquire new information about the gossip target. The least important motive was harming the gossip target. The motivational pattern was highly similar between private and work context. Interestingly, the importance of motives mainly depends on the gossiper's narcissism both in work and in private settings. The findings suggest that the negative reputation of gossip is not justified. In fact, even “dark” personalities appear to use gossip to tune their picture of other humans and themselves and not to harm others.

 gossip gossip motives situation dark triad narcissism Machiavellianism psychopathy

香京julia种子在线播放

    • <form id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv></nobr></form>
      <address id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv></nobr></nobr></address>

      

Introduction

      Eavesdropping in public settings reveals that people devote a substantial part of their conversations to gossip (e.g., Levin and Arluke, 1985; Dunbar et al., 1997). Accordingly, important social functions have been postulated for gossip in science (e.g., Foster, 2004). Despite these important functions, gossip has a rather bad reputation since it is perceived as inherently malicious harming people and society (e.g., Farley, 2011; Hartung and Renner, 2013; Peters and Kashima, 2013). Whether behavior can be judged as good or bad depends, at least in part, on the intention of the individuals engaging in that behavior. Therefore, the present study aims to examine whether the bad reputation of gossip is justified by examining reasons to gossip. In addition, we examine the reasons of individuals scoring high on the dark triad personality traits (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) as they are known to ignore commonly accepted norms and to act selfishly (e.g., O‘Boyle et al., 2012; Muris et al., 2017). More specifically, we investigate whether individuals scoring high on the dark triad personality traits are more ready to use gossip in order to harm others and to serve themselves, thereby, contributing to the negative reputation of gossip.
      

      Gossip refers to the exchange of information about characteristics and behaviors of an absent person (Dunbar, 2004b; Foster, 2004; Peters and Kashima, 2015). From an anthropological perspective, it has been argued that human language primarily evolved to exchange social information in order to deal with complex social situations (Dunbar, 1998, 2004a; Barrett et al., 2002), and that we, therefore, preferentially attend to social information (e.g., Mesoudi et al., 2006). Accordingly, two thirds of adult conversations in public settings involve gossip (e.g., Levin and Arluke, 1985; Dunbar et al., 1997). Experimental evidence is in line with that notion (e.g., Mesoudi et al., 2006). In general, gossip appears to be a widely spread and almost inevitable phenomenon.
      

      As a result, important social functions have been postulated for gossip in anthropological and psychological science (e.g., Suls, 1977; Baumeister et al., 2004; Dunbar, 2004a,b; Foster, 2004; Hartung and Renner, 2013). First, gossip is an efficient means of gathering and disseminating information (Foster, 2004). The exchanged information enables individuals to get a map of their social environment and their position within that social environment (Suls, 1977; Baumeister et al., 2004; Foster, 2004; De Backer et al., 2007; Sommerfeld et al., 2007; Martinescu et al., 2014). Baumeister et al. (2004), for instance, understand gossip as an extension of observational learning. People learn about the complex social and cultural life by hearing about the success and misadventures of others. It appears that we do not learn only about extraordinary experience made by others but also about more trivial things such as dressing style (De Backer et al., 2007). Thus, exchanging information about others enables us to learn without direct interaction and observation.
      

      Secondly, Dunbar (1998, 2004a) and Mesoudi et al. (2006) argues in his social gossip theory of language that human language evolved in order to keep track of complex social networks and to ensure the cohesion in large social groups. More specifically, it has been suggested and empirically shown that, at the dyadic level, sharing gossip is associated with friendship (Grosser et al., 2010; Watson, 2011; Ellwardt et al., 2012b) and even leads to the development of friendships (Ellwardt et al., 2012b; see also Bosson et al., 2006). In addition, it has been suggested that, at the group level, gossip leads to group specific knowledge, norms, and trust, in turn supporting group cohesion and bonding (e.g., Dunbar, 2004b; Foster, 2004; Peters et al., 2017). Thus, sharing information about others is a way to build and maintain relationships and networks.
      

      Thirdly, a growing number of researchers assume that gossip serves as an informal policing device for controlling free riders and social cheats (Dunbar, 2004b; Keltner et al., 2008; Feinberg et al., 2012). Faced with the concern that information about negative behavior runs through the grapevine and may consequently lead to the loss of reputation or even social exclusion, it prevents people from acting against social norms and the good of the group (Piazza and Bering, 2008; Beersma and Van Kleef, 2011; Feinberg et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2016). Thus, gossip keeps people from acting against the good of the group and fosters cooperation.
      

      Finally, it has been suggested that gossip has an entertainment function providing recreational value and considerable stimulation for very little costs (Foster, 2004; Peng et al., 2015). Taken together, research has postulated and empirically shown that the exchange of information about absent third persons serves several important functions in a social environment.
      

      However, despite its important social functions, gossip has a rather negative reputation (Farley, 2011; Hartung and Renner, 2013; Peters and Kashima, 2013). For instance, asking individuals to rate their tendency to gossip, they rate themselves to be less gossipy than an average peer of the same sex, suggesting that gossiping is perceived rather negatively (Hartung and Renner, 2013). Also, frequent gossipers are perceived as less likable and less popular than people gossiping less frequently (Farley, 2011; Ellwardt et al., 2012b). Supporting the bad reputation, some researchers suggest that gossip is a covert form of aggression (i.e., non-confrontational) especially used by women (e.g., McAndrew, 2014). Thus, the positive “social function view” is not mirrored in the reputation of gossip and gossipers.
      

      Thus, evaluating gossip as a rather positive or negative behavior is not as easy as it may appear at first sight. Focusing on the social functions, that can be understood as not necessarily intended social consequences of gossip behavior, research clearly paints a positive picture of gossip. However, one might also evaluate gossip with respect to other dimensions such as positivity or negativity of the transmitted information or the intention of the gossiper (Eckhaus and Ben-Hador, 2018). Focusing on one of these dimensions of gossip might change the evaluation and emphasize the negative reputation of gossip. And indeed, research has shown that people give consideration to the fact that gossip differs and also gossipers differ from each other (Farley, 2011; Beersma and Van Kleef, 2012; Peters and Kashima, 2015). Empirical findings have shown that people take the presumed motivation of a gossiper into account when judging the morality of the respective gossiper, for instance (Beersma and Van Kleef, 2012). Thus, even though people disapprove of gossip in general, they consider the reasons people might have to gossip.
      

      Hence, to evaluate whether a certain behavior is good or bad, the underlying reasons or the intentions should be taken into account. Curiously, very few research exists on simply asking people about the reasons why they gossip (Beersma and Van Kleef, 2012). In their study, Beersma and Van Kleef (2012) distinguished four different reasons to gossip, namely information gathering and validation, social enjoyment, negative influence, and group protection. This means, people instigate gossip to gather information and compare their ideas about others, to enjoy themselves, to spread negative information about a third person, and/or to protect the person they are talking with. The study provides initial evidence that people primarily gossip to gain information about other people and not to harm others (Beersma and Van Kleef, 2012). Thus, when focusing on gossipers' intentions, a rather positive picture of gossip is painted.
      

      Another way to explore whether the reputation of gossip is justified is to examine the gossip reasons of individuals scoring high on narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. These three traits are summarized under the umbrella term dark triad and gained considerable attention in the past years (Jones and Paulhus, 2011; O‘Boyle et al., 2012; Furnham et al., 2013; Jones and Figueredo, 2013; Lee et al., 2013; Book et al., 2015; Muris et al., 2017). It has been shown that the three traits are overlapping, but are nevertheless distinct concepts (e.g., Furnham et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2013; but see also Muris et al., 2017). As the common core the tendency to deceive, manipulate, and exploit others for one's own benefit has been suggested (Lee et al., 2013; see also Jones and Figueredo, 2013). Conversations about absent third parties appear to be an apparent method to do exactly that. Thus, if individuals with “dark” personalities regularly use gossip to spread negative information and harm others that would surely contribute to the negative reputation of gossip. However, if even individuals with “dark” personalities rarely use gossip with the intention to harm others, the positive aspects of gossip would be underlined.
      

      Research has shown that the dark triad personality traits are related to a variety of negative social and non-social outcomes (e.g., Baughman et al., 2012; O‘Boyle et al., 2012; Wisse and Sleebos, 2016; Muris et al., 2017; Deutchman and Sullivan, 2018). For instance, individuals scoring higher on the dark triad traits show a higher tendency to tell lies and to cheat than individuals scoring lower on these traits (Nathanson et al., 2006; Williams et al., 2010; Baughman et al., 2014; Jonason et al., 2014; Roeser et al., 2016; Muris et al., 2017). In addition, individuals scoring higher on the dark triad value themselves over the others (Jonason et al., 2015), are less concerned with others' welfare (Djeriouat and Trémolière, 2014; Jonason et al., 2015; Noser et al., 2015) and with fairness (Jonason et al., 2015). Taken together, these studies and reviews illustrate that individuals scoring higher on the dark triad personality traits are willing to dismiss commonly accepted social norms and harm others for their own good.
      

      Therefore, it is plausible to assume that individuals scoring higher on the dark traits are also more ready to use gossip for their own sake without caring about potentially negative effects for others. More specifically, it is easy to imagine that individuals scoring higher on the dark triad readily use gossip to negatively influence another person's reputation (i.e., potential competitor or rival) to push through self-beneficial agendas. In line with that notion, women scoring high on the dark triad traits use gossip—among other strategies—to derogate competitors (Carter et al., 2015). Additionally, as people with dark personalities are not concerned with others' welfare, they probably use gossip less often to protect other individuals or their group from harm (but see Lyons and Hughes, 2015). In a similar vein, the dark side of personality probably has a high impact on gossip motives that serve individual purposes. For instance, people scoring high on the dark triad traits report to have a strong desire for power, control, and dominance (e.g., Jonason et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2013; Semenyna and Honey, 2015). Gaining social information and knowledge about people surrounding us provides us with a sense of control and advantage over others (e.g., Swann et al., 1981; Fiske, 2004). Therefore, simply gathering and validating social information might be another salient reason for dark personalities to gossip.
      

      Taken together, the present online study focuses on the reasons why people engage in conversations about absent third parties. The aims of the present study are 2-fold. First, we aim to examine the reasons for people to engage in gossip, replicating the study of Beersma and Van Kleef (2012). To do so, we translated the Motives to Gossip Questionnaire into German. In addition, we extended the questionnaire by widening the number of possible reasons including gossiping in order to foster relationship building and to gather social information. Second, to examine whether the bad reputation of gossip is justified or not, we explore the role of the “dark” personality traits in gossip motivation. One might assume that individuals scoring higher on narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy are more likely unconcerned with moral considerations and driven by selfish reasons when engaging in gossip, consequently, contributing to the negative reputation of gossip. However, we have no specific hypotheses concerning the single dark triad traits.
      

      The Motives to Gossip Questionnaire asks participants to rate their reasons for gossip in a specific situation. In order to explore to what extent gossip motives can be generalized across situations, two different situations were incorporated in the study (i.e., private as well as workplace situations). Based on the work of Mischel (1977), researchers differentiate between strong situations with normative expectations and clear roles that constrain behavior, and weak situations which do not provide normative expectations, and, therefore, allow for more freedom in behavior and the expression of personality. Mischel (1977) argued that behavior in strong situations is based on situational circumstances rather than on the individual's personality. In the workplace, people have to follow rules and adjust their behavior to fulfill or support organizational objectives. Here we can assume rather strong situations. In private situations on the other hand, people are mostly unrestricted and have to comply with fewer norms or rules. Also, it is likely that work and private setting differ on a competitiveness-cooperativeness dimension. A competitive situation might elicit motives that serve the individual more easily and hazards negative consequences for others. Taken together, we assume that the work context reflects a rather strong (i.e., clear normative expectations) and competitive situation; and the private context reflects a rather weak and more cooperative situation. Consequently, we explore whether motives show differential importance between these two situations and whether the dark triad traits show differential relationships to gossip reasons across situations (see also Beersma and Van Kleef, 2012).
      
      

Method

Procedure

      Participants were invited via e-mail to fill in an online questionnaire about communication at work. In total, 40 employees from different companies in Germany were addressed. For snowball sampling they were asked to distribute the link to colleagues and other employees. Participants were informed about the study content, that they were free to withdraw at any time without giving any reason, and that the data collection and analysis were anonymized. The study conforms with the Declaration of Helsinki and the ethics guidelines of the German Psychological Society. In accordance with the national and institutional guidelines, ethical approval was not required for this study. The questionnaire was conducted with the informed consent of each subject. Informed consent was provided by ticking a box indicating comprehension of instruction and agreement that their data is used for scientific purposes. Approximately 15–20 min were required to answer the questionnaire. For every questionnaire that was filled in completely 50 Cent were donated to the UNO-Flüchtlingshilfe (UN refugee relief).
      
      

Participants

      In total, 134 participants (n = 79 women, 59%) with a mean age of 35.25 years (SD = 13.10, range = 21–78 years) were recruited for the study. The majority were employed (employed, n = 85), n = 44 were students, n = 3 were retired, n = 1 were in apprenticeship, and n = 1 was unemployed. In total, 100% of the students and the unemployed participant reported to have work experience.
      
      

Measures

Motives to Gossip

      To measure reasons to gossip the English version of Motives to Gossip Questionnaire (Beersma and Van Kleef, 2012) was translated into German using the parallel blind technique (Behling and Law, 2000). That is, four bilingual individuals (German native speakers) translated the questionnaire independently and subsequently reached an agreement on the final version. In addition, that final version was presented to two bilingual individuals (English native speakers) to review the final version. The Motives to Gossip Questionnaire contains 22 items tapping into four different motives, namely the information gathering and validation motive (nine items), the social enjoyment motive (five items), the negative influence motive (five items), and the group protection motive (three items).
      

      Some modifications were made to the original version. To consider a relationship building motive of gossip, three respective items were generated. To distinguish between information gathering and information validation, three new items were generated to capture information gathering; three items of the information gathering and validation subscale were chosen to represent information validation. Moreover, to create a concise measure three items were chosen from the respective subscale to represent the social enjoyment motive and the negative influence motive. The three items were chosen based on consideration about the content and wording as well as on factor loadings obtained through a pre-study (N = 45).
      

      Taken together, the preliminary scale consists of 18 items tapping into six different motives, namely information gathering (IG), information validation (IV), relationship building (RB), protection (P), social enjoyment (SE), and negative influence (NI; see Figure 1). Ratings were provided on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree).
      



      Factor loadings of the items of the Motives to Gossip Questionnaire—Revised (confirmatory factor analysis) separately displayed for work and private setting (N = 134). IV, Information Validation; IG, Information Gathering; RB, Relationship Building; P, Protection; SE, Social Enjoyment; NI, Negative Influence. Latent factors are allowed to correlate. However, correlations are not displayed due to clarity reasons.
      

      

      Consistent with Beersma and Van Kleef (2012), we asked the participants to think about a past situation when they had a conversation with someone about an absent person. We asked them to think about the reasons they had for that conversation and to answer the Motives to Gossip Questionnaire-Revised accordingly. Unlike Beersma and Van Kleef (2012), we asked the participants to think about a situation in a work setting as well as in a private context. Thus, participants filled in the questionnaire twice.
      

      To ensure the internal validity, confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) using AMOS (version 24.0.0) were conducted for private and work setting separately (see Figure 1). The models tested the hypothesized six-factorial model with the six scales as correlated first-order factors with paths leading to the three items hypothesized to comprise that factor (see Figure 1). The chi-square statistic was significant for the work setting (χ2(120) = 190.92, p < 0.001) but not for the private setting χ2(120) = 131.37, p = 0.22). For both settings, the comparative fit index (work setting: CFI = 0.97; private setting: CFI = 0.99) and the root mean square error of approximation [work setting: RMSEA = 0.07 [90% CI:0.05, 0.08]; private setting: RMSEA = 0.03 [90% CI:0.00, 0.05]] were in the acceptable range. The standardized factor loadings for the six-factor model are presented separately in Figure 1 for both settings. All factor loadings were significant (p < 0.001). The inter-factor correlations varied in between r = 0.10 and 0.61 for the work setting and between r = −0.17 and 0.43 for the private setting. Due to clarity reasons the inter-factor correlations are not displayed in Figure 1. They are, however, highly similar to bivariate correlations displayed in Table 1. Internal consistency was highly satisfactory for all subscales (see Figure 1) and, if applicable, comparable to those of Beersma and Van Kleef (2012). The German version of the extended Motives to Gossip Questionnaire is displayed in the Appendix.
      



      Correlations between all scales (N = 134).
      

      

      



Gossip motives
Dark triad

      

      



Work setting
Private setting




      

      



IG
RB
P
SE
NI
IV
IG
RB
P
SE
NI
N
M
PS

      
      


      
Gossip motives
Work setting
Information validation
0.57**
0.44**
0.16
0.33**
0.12
0.67**
0.28**
0.29**
0.09
0.08
0.03
0.32***
0.17*
0.08

      

      


Information gathering

0.44**
0.14
0.46**
0.14
0.43**
0.49**
0.35**
0.13
0.31**
0.14
0.35***
0.30***
0.05

      

      


Relationship building


0.37**
0.50**
0.39**
0.42**
0.33**
0.73**
0.16
0.36**
0.35**
0.48***
0.36***
0.21**

      

      


Protection



0.09
0.24**
0.18*
0.13
0.29**
0.50**
0.10
0.15
0.29***
0.28***
0.11

      

      


Social enjoyment




0.35**
0.21*
0.29**
0.47**
0.08
0.62**
0.41**
0.28***
0.23**
0.16

      

      


Negative influence





0.13
0.19*
0.30**
0.14
0.31**
0.63**
0.33***
0.42***
0.29***

      

      

Private setting
Information validation






0.31**
0.33**
0.07
0.08
0.11
0.29***
0.11
0.01

      

      


Information gathering







0.40**
0.12
0.34**
0.24**
0.16
0.22**
0.08

      

      


Relationship building








0.17*
0.38**
0.28**
0.34***
0.26**
0.17*

      

      


Protection









−0.16
0.22*
0.09
0.10
0.05

      

      


Social enjoyment










0.30**
0.22**
0.16
0.20*

      

      


Negative influence











0.35***
0.32***
0.23**

      

      
Dark triad

Narcissism












0.61***
0.34***

      

      


Machiavellianism













0.49***

      
      

      


      N, Narcissism; M, Machiavellianism; PS, Psychopathy; IV, Information Validation; IG, Information Gathering; RB, Relationship Building; P, Protection; SE, Social Enjoyment; NI, Negative Influence;
      

      p < 0.001;
      

      p < 0.01;
      

      p < 0.05.
      
      
      
      

Dark Triad

      The dark triad personality traits were measured using the German version of the Dirty Dozen scale (DD, German version: Küfner et al., 2014; original version: Jonason and Webster, 2010). The Dirty Dozen scale captures narcissism (e.g., “I tend to want others to admire me.”), Machiavellianism (e.g., “I tend to manipulate others to get my way.”), and psychopathy (e.g., “I tend to be callous or insensitive.”) with four items for each subscale. Ratings were provided on a 9-point rating scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 9 (agree strongly). Thus, higher values indicate higher degrees in the respective personality trait. The subscales exhibited satisfactory reliability in the present study with α = 0.84 for narcissism, α = 0.85 for Machiavellianism, and α = 0.75 for psychopathy which is comparable to previous research (Küfner et al., 2014). On average, participants had scores of M = 4.50 (SD = 1.92) on the narcissism subscale, of M = 3.40 (SD = 1.78) on the Machiavellianism subscale, and of M = 2.70 (SD = 1.66) on the psychopathy subscale. The mean values for narcissism and Machiavellianism are comparable to previous research whereas the mean value for psychopathy is slightly lower in the present study than in previous research (Küfner et al., 2014). There are no gender effects for narcissism (women M = 4.33, SD = 2.07 vs. men M = 4.73, SD = 1.68; t(132) = −1.19, p = 0.24, Cohen's d = 0.21) and Machiavellianism (women M = 3.30, SD = 1.72 vs. men M = 3.54, SD = 1.88; t(132) = −0.76, p = 0.45, Cohen's d = 0.13). However, men and women differ significantly with regard to psychopathy (women M = 2.50, SD = 1.58 vs. men M = 3.08, SD = 1.73; t(132) = −2.01, p = 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.35).
      

      Bivariate correlations between all variables are displayed in Table 1.
      
      
      

Analytical Procedure

      Eleven participants had missing values varying between 1.80 and 35.70%. However, only four participants had missing values between 28.60 and 35.70%. Excluding these participants from analysis did not change the results. According to standard procedures, missing values were imputed prior to forming scales using the EM method in SPSS 24 (Schafer and Graham, 2002).
      

      To examine whether the importance of motives differ among each other and between work and private situations, a repeated 6 × 2 analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted with both “motives” (i.e., information validation vs. information gathering vs. relationship building vs. protection vs. social enjoyment vs. negative influence) and “situation” (i.e., private vs. work) as within factors. The repeated ANOVA was also calculated including gender as a between subject factor. However, we found neither a significant effect nor did the results change including gender. Therefore, due to parsimonious reasons, we only report the results not controlling for gender.
      

      To examine whether the importance of motives depends on the personality of the gossiper, multiple regression analyses were conducted with the dark triad personality traits as independent variables and motives as dependent variables for both work and private situations, respectively. All regression analyses were also calculated including gender as control variable. However, we found neither a significant effect nor did the results change including gender. Due to parsimonious reasons, we only report the results not controlling for gender.
      

      In order to get more insight into our results, we additionally conducted a Bayesian Repeated ANOVA and Bayesian Regression Analyses. The Bayesian analysis has several advantages over classical statistical inference (e.g., van de Schoot et al., 2013; Wagenmakers et al., 2018b) such as less susceptibility to small sample size (van de Schoot et al., 2013). Also, the p-value in classical analysis provides the information about the probability of obtaining results as least as extreme as those observed given that the null hypothesis is true; the alternative hypothesis is left unspecified (Wagenmakers et al., 2018b). In contrast, the Bayes factor (BF) provided in Bayesian analysis is comparative as it weighs the support for one model against that of another. More specifically, the BF compares two competing models: Null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis (Wagenmakers et al., 2018b). BF10 indicates the Bayes factor in favor of H1 over H0, that is, gives the likelihood of the data under the alternative hypothesis divided by the likelihood of the data under null hypothesis. BF01 indicates the Bayes factor in favor of H0 over H1, that is, gives the likelihood of the data under the null hypothesis divided by the likelihood of the data under alternative hypothesis (Nuzzo, 2017; Halter, 2018; Wagenmakers et al., 2018b). According to Wagenmakers et al. (2018a) a BF10 > 100 indicates extreme evidence for H1, a BF10 = 30–100 indicates very strong evidence for H1, a BF10 = 10–30 indicates strong evidence for H1, a BF10 = 3–10 indicates moderate evidence for H1, a BF10 = 1–3 signals anecdotal evidence for H1, BF10 = 1 indicates no evidence for H1, BF10 = 0.3–1 signals anecdotal evidence for H0, BF10 = 0.1–0.3 indicates moderate evidence for H0, BF10 = 0.03–0.1 signals strong evidence for H0, BF10 = 0.01–0.03 indicates very strong evidence for H0, and a BF10 < 0.01 indicates extreme evidence for H0. Bayesian analyses were conducted using the JASP statistic package (version 0.9.2).
      
      
      

Results

Why Are We Talking About Other People?

      To test differences in motives to talk about others, a 6 × 2 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with both “motives” (i.e., information validation vs. information gathering vs. relationship building vs. protection vs. social enjoyment vs. negative influence) and “situation” (i.e., private vs. work) as within factors.
      

      The Mauchly test effects for sphericity yielded significant effects for “motives” (χ2(14) = 52.73, p < 0.001) and for “situation*motives” (χ2(14) = 58.71, p < 0.001). Therefore, corrected F-values are reported (Huynh-Feldt).
      

      The ANOVA yielded a significant main effect for the factor “motives,” F(4.48, 665) = 61.54, p < 0.001, ηP2 = 0.32, indicating that motives were differentially important. Bonferroni adjusted post-hoc analysis revealed that information validation (M = 4.68, SD = 1.59), information gathering (M = 3.92, SD = 1.65) as well as negative influence (M = 2.14, SD = 1.26) differed significantly from all other motives (ps < 0.001, respectively). In contrast, relationship building (M = 3.16, SD = 1.70), protection (M = 3.10, SD = 1.58), and social enjoyment (M = 2.83, SD = 1.64) did not differ significantly from each other (ps = 0.35–1.0).
      

      No significant main effect for the factor “situation” was yielded indicating that the importance of motives was comparable for private and work-related situations, F(1, 133) = 2.94, p = 0.09, ηP2 = 0.02.
      

      In addition, the ANOVA yielded a significant interaction effect when using the Huynh-Feldt corrected statistics, F(4.30, 665) = 2.29, p = 0.05, ηP2 = 0.02. Bonferroni adjusted post-hoc analysis showed that social enjoyment was a more important motive in private situations than in work-related situations (private M = 3.08, SD = 1.84 vs. work M = 2.58, SD = 1.80; p < 0.001). All other motives were equally important in private and work settings (p > 0.49; see Figure 2). However, when using the more conservative Greenhouse-Geisser corrected statistics, the ANOVA yielded no significant interaction effect, F(4.15, 665) = 2.29, p = 0.06, ηP2 = 0.02.
      



      Means, standard deviation (in parenthesis), and error bars for the different motives displayed separately for work and private setting (N = 134).
      

      

      According to Bayesian repeated ANOVA, the model containing the two main effects and the interaction effect received overwhelming support from the data with a BF10 = 6.33 × 1079. According to Wagenmakers et al. (2018a), a BF > 100 shows extreme evidence for H1. However, the model that receives most support was the model containing the “motives” factor only (BF10 = 4.48 × 1082). This indicates that that the data are 4.48 × 1082 times more likely under the model that assumes differences between motives than under the model that assumes no such differences. Also, the values of BFinclusion for “situation” (BFinclusion = 0.11), “motives” (BFinclusion = 3.00 × 1015), and “situation*motives” (BFinclusion = 4.84 × 10−3) show that the “situation” factor and the interaction only receive weak support. In contrast, the “motives” factor receives extreme support.
      

      Taken together, both the classical repeated ANOVA and the Bayesian repeated ANOVA show that the “motives” factor is most meaningful in explaining the data.
      
      

Personality and Motives to Talk About Other People

      To examine whether the importance of motives depends on the gossiper's personality, multiple regression analyses were conducted for both work and private situations. The dark triad personality traits were entered as independent variables and motives as dependent variables. The results are displayed in Table 2. Noticeably, the results revealed that the importance of motives mainly depends on the gossiper's narcissism both in work settings and in private settings.
      



      Regression analysis with motives as dependent variables and dark triad personality traits as independent variables (N = 134).
      

      

      

IV
IG
RB
P
SE
NI

      
      


      

B(SE)
β
t
p
B(SE)
β
t
p
B(SE)
β
t
p
B(SE)
β
t
p
B(SE)
β
t
p
B(SE)
β
t
p

       
      
WORK SETTING

      

      
Intercept
3.44(0.39)

8.91
<0.001
2.34 (0.44)

5.36
<0.001
0.99 (0.38)

2.58
0.01
1.72 (0.41)

4.17
<0.001
1.31 (0.41)

3.21
0.002
0.70 (0.31)

2.28
0.02

      

      
N
0.31(0.10)
0.35
3.31
0.001
0.30(0.11)
0.29
2.77
0.006
0.40 (0.09)
0.41
4.24
<0.001
0.19 (0.10)
0.20
1.87
0.06
0.20 (0.10)
0.22
2.01
0.05
0.08 (0.08)
0.11
1.08
0.28

      

      
M
−0.02(0.11)
−0.02
−0.20
0.84
0.23 (0.12)
0.20
1.84
0.07
0.11 (0.11)
0.11
1.01
0.31
0.19 (0.12)
0.19
1.65
0.10
0.08 (0.11)
0.08
0.69
0.49
0.24 (0.09)
0.30
2.82
0.006

      

      
PS
−0.05(0.10)
−0.05
−0.48
0.63
-0.19 (0.11)
−0.16
−1.67
0.10
0.00 (0.10)
0.00
0.05
0.96
-0.07 (0.11)
−0.06
−0.63
0.53
0.04 (0.11)
0.04
0.36
0.72
0.09 (0.08)
0.10
1.11
0.27

      

      
R (R2)
0.32 (0.10)
0.39 (0.15)
0.49 (0.24)
0.32 (0.10)
0.29 (0.08)
0.44 (0.19)

      

      
F, p
F(3, 130) = 5.00, p = 0.003
F(3, 130) = 7.67, p < 0.001
F(3, 130) = 13.38, p < 0.001
F(3,130) = 4.91, p = 0.003
F(3,130) = 3.89, p = 0.01
F(3,130) = 10.21, p < 0.001

      

      
A: BF10
8.92
209.20
122473.60
7.95
2.30
3804.14

      

      
B: BF10
123.92 (only narcissism)
491.71 (only narcissism)
1.92x106 (only narcissism)
36.39 (only narcissism)
23.06 (only narcissism)
24451.65 (only machia.)

      

      
PRIVATE SETTING

      

      
Intercept
3.72(0.39)

9.48
<0.001
3.10(0.42)

7.47
<0.001
1.63(0.40)

4.11
<0.001
2.72(0.42)

6.48
<0.001
1.96(0.42)

4.64
<0.001
0.90(0.30)

3.06
0.003

      

      
N
0.34(0.10)
0.37
3.48
0.001
0.04(0.10)
0.04
0.40
0.69
0.27(0.10)
0.28
2.72
0.007
0.05(0.10)
0.05
0.47
0.64
0.17(0.10)
0.18
1.63
0.11
0.16(0.07)
0.23
2.21
0.03

      

      
M
−0.07(0.11)
−0.07
−0.62
0.54
0.22(0.12)
0.22
1.88
0.06
0.08(0.11)
0.08
0.67
0.50
0.07(0.12)
0.07
0.62
0.54
-0.02(0.12)
−0.02
−0.17
0.87
0.11(0.08)
0.15
1.38
0.17

      

      
PS
−0.10(0.10)
−0.10
−1.01
0.32
-0.05(0.11)
−0.04
−0.42
0.67
0.02(0.10)
0.02
0.23
0.82
-0.01(0.11)
−0.01
−0.10
0.92
0.16(0.11)
0.14
1.44
0.15
0.05(0.08)
0.07
0.70
0.48

      

      
R (R2)
0.31 (0.10)
0.23 (0.05)
0.35 (0.12)
0.11 (0.01)
0.25 (0.06)
0.38 (0.14)

      

      
F, p
F(3,130) = 4.69, p = 0.004
F(3,130) = 2.37, p = 0.07
F(3,130) = 5.87, p = 0.001
F(3,130) = 0.51, p = 0.68
F(3,130) = 2.95, p = 0.04
F(3,130) = 7.21, p < 0.001

      

      
A: BF10
6.09
0.35
25.36
0.03
0.73
123.43

      

      
B: BF10
36.69 (only narcissism)
4.10 (only Machiavellianism)
323.46 (only narcissism)
0.34 (only Machiavellianism)
3.64 (only narcissism)
455.18 (only narcissism)

      
      

      


      N, Narcissism; M, Machiavellianism; PS, Psychopathy; IV, Information Validation; IG, Information Gathering; RB, Relationship Building; P, Protection; SE, Social Enjoyment; NI, Negative Influence; A: BF10 = probability of the alternative hypothesis compared to the null hypothesis when all three personality traits are included in the model. B: BF10 = probability of the alternative hypothesis compared to the null hypothesis when the model is considered under which the data are most likely; BF10 > 100 = extreme evidence for H1, BF10 30–100 = very strong evidence for H1, BF10 10-30 = strong evidence for H1, BF10 3–10 = moderate evidence for H1, BF10 1–3 = anecdotal evidence for H1, BF10 1 = no evidence for H1, BF10 1/3–1 = anecdotal evidence for H0, BF10 1/10–1/3 = moderate evidence for H0, BF10 1/30–1/10 = strong evidence for H0, BF10 1/100–1/30 = very strong evidence for H0, BF10 < 1/100 = extreme evidence for H0. Displayed are results of the classical linear regression analysis and the BF10s of the Bayesian linear regression analysis.
      
      
      

      People scoring higher on narcissism indicated information validation as a more important motive when talking about absent third parties than people scoring lower in narcissism both in work (p = 0.001) and private (p < 0.001) settings. Gathering information about others was also a more important motive for individuals scoring higher on narcissism than for those scoring lower narcissism, however, only in work settings (p = 0.006). Using gossip to build relationships was more often rated as relevant by individuals scoring higher on narcissism than by those scoring lower on narcissism both in work (p < 0.001) and private (p = 0.007) settings. Gossiping with a person in order to warn that person of a target person appears not to spur gossip for any of the dark personalities. Again, social enjoyment reasons are more often reported by participants scoring higher on narcissism, however, only in work-related settings (p = 0.05). Using gossip to negatively influence the reputation of the target person is related to narcissism and Machiavellianism. Whereas, in private settings this motive appears to be more important for individuals scoring higher on narcissism than for those scoring lower on narcissism (p = 0.03), in work settings it appears to be more important for individuals scoring higher on Machiavellianism than for those scoring lower on Machiavellianism (p = 0.006).
      

      Bayesian regression analyses were conducted in two steps. In a first step, the BF10s of the models with narcissism, Machiavelliansim, and psychopathy as independent variables and the respective gossip motive as dependent variable were of interest (see Table 2; A: BF10). In the work setting, Bayesian linear regression analyses show that all models received support from the data with BF10s varying between BF10 = 2.30 for social enjoyment and BF10 = 122473.60 for relationship building. The positive BF10s indicate that the data are more likely under the model assuming associations between the three personality traits and the respective gossip motive than under the model assuming no association. In contrast, in the private setting the picture is not that clear-cut. The models predicting information validation (BF10 = 6.09), relationship building (BF10 = 25.36), and negative influence (BF10 = 123.43) show moderate to extreme evidence for the H1 indicating that the data are more likely under the model assuming associations between the three personality traits and the respective gossip motive than under the model assuming no association. The models predicting information gathering (BF10 = 0.35), protection (BF10 = 0.03), and social enjoyment (BF10 = 0.73) show anecdotal to very strong evidence for the H0 indicating that the data are more likely under the model that assumes no relationship than under the model including the three personality traits.
      

      In a second step, we did not look at the models containing all three personality traits but at the models reaching the highest BF10 (see Table 2; B: BF10). For instance, when gossip validation in work context has been the dependent variable the model containing only narcissism reached the highest BF10. This indicates that the data are about 124 times more likely under the model assuming an association between narcissism and gossip validation than under the model assuming no such association (BF10 = 123.92). Taken together, the BF10s in the work setting showed that in 5 out of 6 analyses the BF10s are highest when the models include only narcissism. For instance, the data are about 492 times more likely under the model assuming narcissism and information gathering to be associated than under the null model that assumes no association (BF10 = 491.71). Similarly, in the private setting, in 4 out of 6 analyses the BF10s are highest when the model includes only narcissism.
      

      Taken together, both classical linear regression and Bayesian linear regression show that the importance of motives mainly depends on the gossiper's narcissism.
      
      
      

Discussion

Summary

      In the present study, we examined the differential importance of reasons to engage in gossip behavior. Six distinct reasons have been identified that underlie gossip behavior: information validation, information gathering, relationship building, protection, social enjoyment, and negative influence. Replicating previous research, the results show that motives were seen as differentially important (Beersma and Van Kleef, 2012). It appears that people mainly gossip for informational reasons and only marginally to harm others. This holds true in two fundamental domains of life, namely the private and the work context. In both domains the importance of motives mainly depends on the narcissism of the gossiper whereas psychopathy appears to be irrelevant for gossip motivation.
      
      

Good or Bad?

      Taken together, the results suggest that gossip is better than its reputation as people report to mainly use gossip for informational reasons and not to ruin the reputation of others. That means, when broadening the view and evaluating gossip not only with regard to social functions but also with regard the intention of the gossiper a positive impression of gossip emerges. Importantly, even individuals that are willing to dismiss commonly accepted social norms, act selfishly, and harm others for their own good appear to use gossip to tune their picture of other humans and themselves and not to harm others. Thus, even individuals with “dark” personalities rarely use gossip with a negative intention, underlining the positivity of gossip.
      

      One might argue that this positive view on gossip arises due to data flawed by participants' tendency to socially desirable responding. However, there are several reasons challenging that argument. First, there is also evidence from observational (i.e., eavesdropping) studies showing that the content of conversation is mainly neutral in its value and only certain parts are clearly positive or negative (Levin and Arluke, 1985; Dunbar et al., 1997). And also the study by Beersma and Van Kleef (2012) shows that people mainly talk about others for informational reasons and not to negatively influence other people's reputation. Contrary to that perspective, gossip is considered as a form of passive-aggressive form of workplace bullying in work and organizational literature (e.g., Lewis and Gunn, 2007; Crothers et al., 2009; Privitera and Campbell, 2009). In line with that notion, it appears that negative gossip at the workplace is structured around “scapegoats” indicating that a large number of employees talk negatively about a small number of colleagues (Ellwardt et al., 2012a). And being the scapegoat might have disastrous effects on the individuals as, in addition, their relationship to colleagues appears to be characterized by difficulties (Ellwardt et al., 2012a). However, gossip is only one aspect of one dimension of workplace bullying (Harvey et al., 2006; Crothers et al., 2009; Privitera and Campbell, 2009). Work and organizational literature has also shown that people gossip for other than hostile intentions at the workplace (Waddington, 2005; Waddington and Fletcher, 2005; Kuo et al., 2015; see also Michelson and Mouly, 2004; Michelson et al., 2010). Moreover, research on gossip networks within the work context shows that employees more often tend to gossip positively about colleagues than negatively (Ellwardt et al., 2012a). In sum, there is work and organizational literature conceptualizing gossip outside the bullying framework but rather as a channel of informal communication and information exchange (Michelson and Mouly, 2004; Michelson et al., 2010; Kuo et al., 2015) underlining the notion that the negative reputation of gossip is not justified. Second, even people with so called “dark” personalities are not invariably triggered by malicious motives when talking about others. And individuals with “dark” personalities are not known for their desire to appear or behave socially appropriate (e.g., Foster and Trimm, 2008). Thirdly, the present study has been conducted as an online study warranting complete anonymity. Therefore, one might assume that there was no need for socially desirable responding. Thus, it appears that people, regardless of being on the “dark” side of personality or on “bright” side, mainly use gossip to tune their picture of other humans and themselves.
      

      Considering the rather positive motives and social functions of gossip, it appears highly interesting why gossip is condemned so harshly. One might speculate that the positive social functions of gossip depend on a moderate use of gossip be it with regard to the amount or the valence of gossip. In line with that notion, research shows that individuals who show a high frequency of negative gossip are rated as highly dislikable (Farley, 2011). Also, qualitative research show that people, even though enjoying gossip, restrict themselves because they are afraid of becoming a gossip target themselves (Rodrigues et al., 2019). Assuming excessive gossip would damage trust within groups and harm individuals, one might speculate that the bad reputation of gossip restricts people from gossiping excessively. Thus, the bad reputation might also have a positive social function itself.
      
      

Motivation, Personality, and Situation

      The present results show that the reasons to talk about an absent person depend to some extent on the personality of the people being part of the gossip activity (i.e., gossiper). However, the association with personality varies between motives, traits, and situations.
      

Motives

      Validating and gathering information were the most important motives in the private and the work context. Validating their view of the social world and gaining information through gossip is likely to help the individual to form a map of their social environment and their position within that social environment in the long run (Suls, 1977; Baumeister et al., 2004; Foster, 2004; De Backer et al., 2007; Sommerfeld et al., 2007; Martinescu et al., 2014). Information validation shows a consistent positive relationship with narcissism. The more narcissistic a person is, the more they tend to use gossip in order to validate information about others and also to gather information (at least in the work setting). As individuals scoring high on narcissism are characterized by a grandiose (and sometimes vulnerable) self-concept that causes them to search for external appreciation (Morf and Rhodewalt, 2001; Jones and Paulhus, 2011; Back et al., 2013), one might speculate that gossip is a low risk method to gain information about the self. Even though the received information makes one stack up badly against the social environment, it might be less painful because it does not happen in the “public eye”. This way, to gain social comparison information minimizes the potential psychological cost. Thus, calibrating the own perspective and gathering information about other people, and thereby about the self, appears to be important when gossiping, specifically for people who shy away from more direct forms of social comparisons due to a vulnerable self-concept.
      

      Another reason to exchange information about a third person was to build trust to one's gossip partner. This motivation was apparent in the private setting as well as in the work setting suggesting that it might play a role in amicable relationship building as well as professional networking. Also, relationship building shows consistent positive associations with narcissism. The more narcissistic a person is, the more they report using gossip in order to build trust and grow closer with the gossip partner. Jonason and Schmitt (2012) claim narcissism to be the “dark” trait with “the most social core” (p. 402). In line with that notion, they were able to show that individuals scoring high on narcissism are not choosy when selecting friends. In addition, Buffardi and Campbell (2008) showed that individuals scoring high on narcissism are more active on social networking sites such as Facebook® (see also e.g., Carpenter, 2012). Jonason and Schmitt (2012) argued that being surrounded by a lot of (potential) friends is a way to satisfy the continuous need for self-validation; likewise, it may serve the need for external self-affirmation and appreciation—you need audience when you want to shine on stage (Morf and Rhodewalt, 2001). However, as more narcissistic individuals make more favorable impressions at first sight but not in the long run (Paulhus, 1998; Back et al., 2010), one might speculate that more narcissistic individuals have to keep “friend-supplies” coming. Exchanging information with others might be an easy method to form new relationships and shape the social environment according to one's needs.
      

      The motive to warn and protect a conversational partner appears to be of similar importance as relationship building and enjoyment. It seems likely that this rather altruistic motive, on the long run, serves the function of group protection. Thus, by passing reputational information about a potential “harm-doer” to a gossip partner, the group as a whole is protected against cheaters, free-riders and alike (Dunbar, 2004b; Keltner et al., 2008; Piazza and Bering, 2008; Beersma and Van Kleef, 2011; Feinberg et al., 2012, 2014). Also, at the group level, a climate of information permeability and norm compliance is generated (e.g., Piazza and Bering, 2008; Feinberg et al., 2012). In contrast to our expectation, we did not find any negative relationship between the dark triad and the protection motive. That is, individuals scoring high on the dark triad traits gossip as often as individuals scoring low on the dark triad traits in order to protect somebody. In the light of these findings one might speculate that for “dark” individuals gossiping about cheaters and free-riders removes potential rivals and creates a climate of trust. In a climate of trust, people with dark personalities could continue to follow their self-beneficial agendas without being hindered.
      

      Gossiping just for fun and to pass time appears to be as important as relationship building and protecting others from harm. This finding deviates from previous research where social enjoyment reasons were rated as more important than protection reasons (Beersma and Van Kleef, 2012). As in the present sample more participants are employed than in the sample of previous research (Beersma and Van Kleef, 2012), individuals are presumably more occupied and have less time for gossiping just for fun. In support of that notion, the social enjoyment motive is less important in the professional setting than in the private setting. However, this difference between work and private setting has to be interpreted with care as different F-test corrections come to different results and the Bayes analyses show that the data get more support when including only “motive” as predictor in the model. Curiously, specifically in a professional setting, people scoring high on narcissism tend to gossip more for social enjoyment reasons than people scoring low on narcissism. It appears as if time limits in work setting and other boundaries given by social norms in work settings do not hinder them from passing time talking about others.
      

      In clear contrast to the bad reputation, gossiping is not mainly driven by malicious reasons. Rather, negatively influencing the reputation of others is the least important reason to gossip. As outlined earlier, this is in line with previous results from observational (i.e., eavesdropping) studies showing that the content of conversation is mainly neutral in its value and only certain parts are clearly positive or clearly negative (Levin and Arluke, 1985; Dunbar et al., 1997). Interestingly, the motivation to negatively influence the reputation of somebody else is not solely associated with narcissism but also with Machiavellianism. However, whereas individuals scoring high on narcissism appear to use gossip in a malicious way in private settings, individuals scoring high on Machiavellianism tend to bad-mouth others in professional settings. The potentially more competitive professional setting elicited more malicious gossip only by people scoring high on Machiavellianism. One might speculate that more Machiavellian individuals use gossip more strategically to gain long-term, higher order goals in domains of competition and performance (Jones and Paulhus, 2011).
      

      Even though it appears that the reasons to gossip correspond to the social functions of gossip, we do not suppose that the different gossip motives act in the service of a single function exclusively. Rather, a single motive might serve unintentionally different social functions, presumably more than one at once. For instance, gossiping just for fun might serve a recreational function, and, at the same time, create trust and closeness facilitating relationship building. Likewise, individuals might use gossip in order to negatively influence the reputation of a target person, and, without intention, simultaneously serve the social function of group protection. To make it even more complicated, it is plausible to assume that people have different motives at the same time. Gossiping in order to protect a gossip partner might well go hand in hand with the intention to damage the reputation of the gossip target. Thus, there is much more research needed to uncover the complex interrelations between the diverse motives and social functions.
      
      

Personality

      Interestingly, with regard to the dark triad personality traits, only narcissism shows consistent associations with motives to gossip. According to Jones and Paulhus (2011), narcissism can be distinguished from psychopathy and Machiavellianism by the type of goals they pursue. Whereas, individuals scoring high on psychopathy and Machiavellianism pursue goals of a concrete, instrumental nature, individuals scoring high on narcissism aim for goals that are of an abstract, symbolic nature (Jones and Paulhus, 2011, p. 258). Accordingly, more narcissistic individuals have a higher need for a superior identity. The identity in turn emerges in part from information provided by the social environment (Baumeister, 1997, 1998; Fiske, 2004; Jones and Paulhus, 2011). As outlined earlier, gossip appears to be a painless-and-quick mean to get information about the social surrounding and oneself; either by explicitly using gossip to validate and gather information or by trying to foster relationships in order to have an audience to act.
      

      Other research shows that in comparison to more psychopathic and more Machiavellian individuals, more narcissistic individuals tend to use more soft tactics to influence others (Jonason et al., 2012). Soft tactics are designed to convince another person of the advocated behavior being in their best interest. In contrast, hard tactics are tactics which the user forces their will on another person with (Yukl and Falbe, 1990). Also, individuals scoring high on narcissism show more indirect bullying than physical bullying (Baughman et al., 2012). Assuming that gossip is a soft tactic or a form of indirect aggression (McAndrew, 2014), one might speculate more narcissistic individuals to be especially prone to use these methods in order to manipulate others while maintaining their social standing.
      
      

Situation

      In the present study, the importance of gossip motives did not differ substantially between work and private situations. This might be due to similar gossip behavior across different situations or due to the fact that the distinction between work and private situations has not been precise enough. We differentiated between work and private settings assuming that these are reasonably different in terms of social norms and competitiveness. However, jobs, workplaces, and organizations are highly different in terms of normative expectations and competitiveness. Empirical research has already shown that gossip activity at the workplace depends on variables such as trust in management (Ellwardt et al., 2012c), psychological contract violations (Kuo et al., 2015), leadership (Kuo et al., 2015), ambiguity of formal communication within organizations (Crampton et al., 1998), and perceived stress and anxiety (Waddington and Fletcher, 2005). Thus, gossip activity highly depends on organizational and occupational features. Research on organizational features that hinder or facilitate workplace bullying suggest that organizations may vary on enabling structures and processes (e.g., perceived power imbalance, frustration), on motivating structures and processes (e.g., internal competition, reward system), and on precipitating processes (e.g., organizational changes; Salin, 2003; Crothers et al., 2009). As gossip is used by workplace bullies, and, therefore, considered as one aspect of workplace bullying (e.g., Lewis and Gunn, 2007; Crothers et al., 2009; Privitera and Campbell, 2009), the reasons for gossip as well as gossip frequency and valence might also depend on these organizational or occupational features. In addition, they may also depend on the years in a specific organization. The time working within an organization is probably related to the amount and intensity of relationships somebody has to others in that organization; and, therefore, might be related to the motives that steer gossip behavior. Taken together, the organizational and occupational circumstances of participants might have been so different that potential effects due to the situation might have been blurred. In addition, around 30% of our participants were students for whom private and work life are not that distinct and merge. In order to gain more knowledge about the effects of situational attributes on gossip motives, frequency, and valence future research should use experimental design or intensive longitudinal methods (i.e., diary and experience sampling).
      
      
      
      

Limitations

      One strength of the present study is that it extends previous research through the comprehensive assessment of gossip reasons. Furthermore, the present study took the challenge of assessing gossip motivation and the dark triad personality traits in a non-student sample. Additionally, we studied the importance of gossip motivations in different contexts of social life (private and work-related).
      

      Given these strengths, some limitations need to be considered. First, the motives captured in the Motives to Gossip Questionnaire as well as in the extended version are based on a literature review, and, therefore, ultimately originate from the mind of researchers. Future research needs to take a more comprehensive approach and investigate whether the results can be replicated by using minds of lay persons (i.e., interviewing lay persons about their reasons). In-depth interviews might uncover additional motives to exchange information about others.
      

      Second, considering that one focus of the study was the association between the gossip motives and the dark triad personality traits, the use of a short measure of the dark triad is questionable. The Dirty Dozen aims to capture the core aspects which are the grandiose self-view for narcissism, exploitation of others for Machiavellianism and the callousness for psychopathy (Küfner et al., 2014). Even though the Dirty Dozen Scale has shown convergent validity with comprehensive measures, using more complex measures for the respective three traits would allow deeper insight into the associations. Specifically, examining the different facets and subtypes of narcissism would facilitate the interpretation of the relationships found between narcissism and gossip motives.
      

      Third, the order in which participants had to report on gossip in a work and in a private setting was not varied between participants. On the contrary, each participants was first asked to think about a gossip event in private setting and then in a professional setting. One might assume that thinking about a gossip event in a private setting could influence recall on gossiping in a professional context leading to similar results across situations. However, research on order effects within surveys suggests that both assimilation and contrast effects might occur (Sudman et al., 1996). For instance, in a study conducted by Schwarz and Bless (1992), participants were asked about a specific politician (i.e., Barschel) who was involved in a scandal. Those who were asked to rate the trustworthiness of politicians in general afterwards rated the trustworthiness lower than those who were asked to rate the trustworthiness of specific politicians. Thus, an assimilation occurred in the first case whereas a contrast effect emerged in the second case. As in the present study the evaluation of two specific events were required, a contrast effect would have been more likely to occur (see also Schwarz and Bless, 1991). However, as our data shows no differences between these two events, it is reasonable to assume that no order effects emerged at all. Another argument speaking against the assumption that an assimilation effect has occurred is the operation of conversational norms that prohibit redundancy. More specifically, respondents may deliberately ignore information that has already been provided in response to previous question (Schwarz and Bless, 1991; Schwarz et al., 1991; Schwarz, 1999). Thus, when thinking about the second gossip event participants might have explicitly thought about a gossip event differing from the previous one. Nevertheless, future research needs to find a concluding answer.
      

      Fourth, in the Motives to Gossip Questionnaire participants are asked to think about their reasons to gossip in a specific situation capturing their motivation to gossip in that situation. This approach might harbor potential threats. Participants have to consult their autobiographical memory to identify relevant behavioral events, and, in addition, remember in detail the reasons for this behavior (e.g., Sudman et al., 1996). Remembering an event depends in part on the depth and elaboration of the encoding process of the event. The depth and elaboration of the encoding reflects variables such as distinctiveness, emotional impact, and duration. Events that are unusual, dramatic, or lasting ensure that a rich representation is formed and are stored in the long-term memory. Thus, unusual or emotional arousing gossip events might be remembered easily whereas irregular but frequent and relatively unimportant gossip events are not retrieved easily and perhaps forgotten entirely (Sudman et al., 1996; Tourangeau, 2000). Consequently, participants might have selected highly salient examples of gossip events that are not representative of more frequent gossip sessions. However, at the same time the rich representations of these unusual events of gossip make it more plausible that participants have a vivid and detailed memory and can therefore recall related aspects such as motivations for behavior more easily (Tourangeau, 2000). An alternative method might be to ask participants to provide information about their tendency to gossip for certain reasons across different situations and across time. Such a procedure would presumably detach the dependency of single highly salient gossip events and would also open the opportunity to study individual differences in stable underlying motives.
      

      Fifth, because of the relatively small sample size of N = 134 the power of the analysis might have been reduced resulting in a higher probability of type-II error. And indeed, a post hoc power analysis for the repeated ANOVA revealed that the F-test of the main effect “situation” did not achieve sufficient power (0.40) to detect an effect. Similarly, the test of the interaction effect did not achieve sufficient power (0.68). Also, post-hoc power analysis for the two regression analyses not reaching conventional levels of significance (i.e., for information gathering and protection in private setting) revealed that the F-tests did not achieve sufficient power (0.13 for protection and 0.58 for information gathering). To address the issue of sample size, the analyses were repeated using Bayesian statistics (e.g., van de Schoot et al., 2013). Mirroring the results of the classical repeated ANOVA, the Bayesian repeated ANOVA revealed that the “situation” as well as the interaction were not meaningful. Also, the Bayesian linear regression mirrors the results of the classical linear regression analyses. Thus, both kinds of analyses draw a very similar picture of the results emphasizing their reliability.
      

      Finally, in the present paper, concurrent associations between personality and reasons to gossip were studied. However, to fully understand the complex interplay between personality, gossip behavior and long term effects of gossip (i.e., social functions such as facilitation of relationship building, protection, facilitation of social learning) longitudinal studies are needed.
      
      

Conclusion

      Gossip runs like a thread through our social world. Regardless of important social functions, gossip has a rather negative reputation. The present study shows that the negative reputation is not justified as individuals indicate they mainly use gossip for informational reasons and not to harm others. And, even though the motives to gossip depend on the gossiper's personality (i.e., dark triad personality), also individuals with “dark” personalities appear to use gossip to tune their picture of other humans and themselves.
      
      

Ethics Statement

      The study conforms with the Declaration of Helsinki and the ethics guidelines of the German Psychological Society. In accordance with the national and institutional guidelines, ethical approval was not required for this study.
      
      

Author Contributions

      F-MH, CK, and MP contributed conception and design of the study and performed the statistical analysis. CK and MP organized the database. F-MH wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read and approved the submitted version.
      

Conflict of Interest Statement

      The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
      
      
      



References

Back M. D. Küfner A. C. Dufner M. Gerlach T. M. Rauthmann J. F. Denissen J. J. (2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 105, 1013–1037. 10.1037/a003443124128186

Back M. D. Schmukle S. C. Egloff B. (2010). Why are narcissists so charming at first sight? Decoding the narcissism–popularity link at zero acquaintance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98, 132–145. 10.1037/a001633820053038

Barrett L. Dunbar R. Lycett J. (2002). Human Evolutionary Psychology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 10.1007/978-1-137-23550-3

Baughman H. M. Dearing S. Giammarco E. Vernon P. A. (2012). Relationships between bullying behaviours and the Dark Triad: a study with adults. Pers. Individ. Dif. 52, 571–575. 10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.020

Baughman H. M. Jonason P. K. Lyons M. Vernon P. A. (2014). Liar liar pants on fire: cheater strategies linked to the Dark Triad. Pers. Individ. Dif. 71, 35–38. 10.1016/j.paid.2014.07.019

Baumeister R. F. (1997). Identity, self-concept, and self-esteem: the self lost and found, in Handbook of Personality Psychology, eds Hogan R. Johnson J. Briggs S. (New York, NY: Elsevier), 681–710. 10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50027-5

Baumeister R. F. (1998). The self, in The Handbook of Social Psychology, eds Gilbert D. T. Fiske S. T. Gardner L. (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill) 680–740.

Baumeister R. F. Zhang L. Vohs K. D. (2004). Gossip as cultural learning. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 8, 111–121. 10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.111

Beersma B. Van Kleef G. A. (2011). How the grapevine keeps you in line: gossip increases contributions to the group. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2, 642–649. 10.1177/1948550611405073

Beersma B. Van Kleef G. A. (2012). Why people gossip: an empirical analysis of social motives, antecedents, and consequences. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42, 2640–2670. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00956.x

Behling O. Law K. S. (2000). Translating Questionnaires and Other Research Instruments: Problems and Solutions. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781412986373

Book A. Visser B. A. Volk A. A. (2015). Unpacking evil: claiming the core of the Dark Triad. Pers. Individ. Dif. 73, 29–38. 10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.016

Bosson J. K. Johnson A. B. Niederhoffer K. Swann W. B. Jr. (2006). Interpersonal chemistry through negativity: bonding by sharing negative attitudes about others. Pers. Relatsh. 13, 135–150. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00109.x

Buffardi L. E. Campbell W. K. (2008). Narcissism and social networking web sites. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34, 1303–1314. 10.1177/014616720832006118599659

Carpenter C. J. (2012). Narcissism on facebook: self-promotional and anti-social behavior. Pers. Individ. Dif. 52, 482–486. 10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.011

Carter G. L. Montanaro Z. Linney C. Campbell A. C. (2015). Women's sexual competition and the Dark Triad. Pers. Individ. Dif. 74, 275–279. 10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.022

Crampton S. M. Hodge J. W. Mishra J. M. (1998). The informal communication network: factors influencing grapevine activity. Public Pers. Manag. 27, 569–584. 10.1177/009102609802700410

Crothers L. M. Lipinski J. Minutolo M. C. (2009). Cliques, rumors, and gossip by the water cooler: female bullying in the workplace. Psychol. Manager J. 12, 97–110. 10.1080/10887150902886423

De Backer C. J. Nelissen M. Vyncke P. Braeckman J. Mcandrew F. T. (2007). Celebrities: from teachers to friends. Hum. Nat. 18, 334–354. 10.1007/s12110-007-9023-z26181311

Deutchman P. Sullivan J. (2018). The dark triad and framing effects predict selfish behavior in a one-shot prisoner's dilemma. PLoS ONE 13:e0203891. 10.1371/journal.pone.020389130231036

Djeriouat H. Trémolière B. (2014). The Dark Triad of personality and utilitarian moral judgment: the mediating role of Honesty/Humility and Harm/Care. Pers. Individ. Dif. 67, 11–16. 10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.026

Dunbar R. (1998). Theory of mind and the evolution of language, in Approaches to the Evolution of Language, eds Hurford J. R. Studdert-Kennedy M. Knight C. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 92–110.

Dunbar R. (2004a). Groomin, Gossip and the Evolution of Language. London: faber and faber.

Dunbar R. I. (2004b). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 8, 100–110. 10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.100

Dunbar R. I. Marriott A. Duncan N. D. (1997). Human conversational behavior. Hum. Nat. 8, 231–246. 10.1007/BF0291249326196965

Eckhaus E. Ben-Hador B. (2018). To gossip or not to gossip: reactions to a perceived request to gossip – a qualitative study. Trames J. Hum. Soc. Sci. 22, 273–288. 10.3176/tr.2018.3.04

Ellwardt L. Labianca G. Wittek R. (2012a). Who are the objects of positive and negative gossip at work?: a social network perspective on workplace gossip. Soc. Netw. 34, 193–205. 10.1016/j.socnet.2011.11.003

Ellwardt L. Steglich C. Wittek R. (2012b). The co-evolution of gossip and friendship in workplace social networks. Soc. Netw. 34, 623–633. 10.1016/j.socnet.2012.07.002

Ellwardt L. Wittek R. Wielers R. (2012c). Talking about the boss: Effects of generalized and interpersonal trust on workplace gossip. Group Organiz. Manag. 37, 519–547. 10.1177/1059601112450607

Farley S. D. (2011). Is gossip power? The inverse relationships between gossip, power, and likability. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 41, 574–579. 10.1002/ejsp.821

Feinberg M. Cheng J. T. Willer R. (2012). Gossip as an effective and low-cost form of punishment. Behav. Brain Sci. 35, 25–25. 10.1017/S0140525X1100123322289314

Feinberg M. Willer R. Schultz M. (2014). Gossip and ostracism promote cooperation in groups. Psychol. Sci. 25, 656–664. 10.1177/095679761351018424463551

Fiske S. T. (2004). Social Beings: A Core Motives Aaproach to Social Psychology. New York, NY: Wiley.

Foster E. K. (2004). Research on gossip: taxonomy, methods, and future directions. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 8, 78–99. 10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.78

Foster J. D. Trimm R. F. (2008). On being eager and uninhibited: narcissism and approach–avoidance motivation. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34, 1004–1017. 10.1177/014616720831668818436654

Furnham A. Richards S. C. Paulhus D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of personality: a 10 year review. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 7, 199–216. 10.1111/spc3.12018

Grosser T. J. Lopez-Kidwell V. Labianca G. (2010). A social network analysis of positive and negative gossip in organizational life. Group Organiz. Manag. 35, 177–212. 10.1177/1059601109360391

Halter C. (2018). Exploring Statistical Analysis Using JASP: Frequentist and Bayesian Approaches. Creative Minds Press.

Hartung F.-M. Renner B. (2013). Social curiosity and gossip: Related but different drives of social functioning. PLoS ONE 8:e69996. 10.1371/journal.pone.006999623936130

Harvey M. G. Heames J. T. Richey R. G. Leonard N. (2006). Bullying: from the playground to the boardroom. J. Leadership Organiz. Stud. 12, 2–11. 10.1177/107179190601200401

Jonason P. K. Li N. P. Teicher E. A. (2010). Who is James bond? The Dark Triad as an agentic social style. Individ. Dif. Res. 8, 111–120.

Jonason P. K. Lyons M. Baughman H. M. Vernon P. A. (2014). What a tangled web we weave: the Dark Triad traits and deception. Pers. Individ. Dif. 70, 117–119. 10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.038

Jonason P. K. Schmitt D. P. (2012). What have you done for me lately? Friendship-selection in the shadow of the Dark Triad traits. Evol. Psychol. 10, 400–421. 10.1177/14747049120100030322947669

Jonason P. K. Slomski S. Partyka J. (2012). The Dark Triad at work: how toxic employees get their way. Pers. Individ. Dif. 52, 449–453. 10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.008

Jonason P. K. Strosser G. L. Kroll C. H. Duineveld J. J. Baruffi A. (2015). Valuing myself over others: the Dark Triad traits and moral and social values. Pers. Individ. Dif. 81, 102–106. 10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.045

Jonason P. K. Webster G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: a concise measure of the dark triad. Psychol. Assess. 22, 420. 10.1037/a001926520528068

Jones D. N. Figueredo A. J. (2013). The core of darkness: uncovering the heart of the Dark Triad. Eur. J. Pers. 27, 521–531. 10.1002/per.1893

Jones D. N. Paulhus D. L. (2011). Differentiating the Dark Triad within the interpersonal Curcumplex, in Handbook of Interpersonal Psychology: Theory, Research, Assessment and Therapeutic Interventions, eds Horowitz L. M. Strack S. (New York, NY: Wiley and Sons), 249–269. 10.1002/9781118001868.ch15

Keltner D. Van Kleef G. A. Chen S. Kraus M. W. (2008). A reciprocal influence model of social power: emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40, 151–192. 10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00003-2

Küfner A. C. Dufner M. Back M. D. (2014). Das Dreckige Dutzend und die Niederträchtigen Neun. Diagnostica 61, 76–91. 10.1026/0012-1924/a000124

Kuo C. Chang K. Quinton S. Lu C. Lee I. (2015). Gossip in the workplace and the implications for HR management: a study of gossip and its relationship to employee cynicism. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 26, 2288–2307. 10.1080/09585192.2014.985329

Lee K. Ashton M. Wiltshire J. Bourdage J. Visser B. Gallucci A. (2013). Sex, power, and money: prediction from the Dark Triad and Honesty-Humility. Eur. J. Pers. 27, 169–184. 10.1002/per.1860

Levin J. Arluke A. (1985). An exploratory analysis of sex differences in gossip. Sex Roles 12, 281–286. 10.1007/BF00287594

Lewis D. Gunn R. (2007). Workplace bullying in the public sector: understanding the racial dimension. Public Adm. 85, 641–665. 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00665.x

Lyons M. T. Hughes S. (2015). Malicious mouths? The Dark Triad and motivations for gossip. Pers. Individ. Dif. 78, 1–4. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.009

Martinescu E. Janssen O. Nijstad B. A. (2014). Tell me the gossip: the self-evaluative function of receiving gossip about others. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 40, 1668–1680. 10.1177/014616721455491625344294

McAndrew F. T. (2014). The sword of a woman: gossip and female aggression. Aggress. Violent Behav. 19, 196–199. 10.1016/j.avb.2014.04.006

Mesoudi A. Whiten A. Dunbar R. (2006). A bias for social information in human cultural transmission. Br. J. Psychol. 97, 405–423. 10.1348/000712605X8587116848951

Michelson G. Mouly V. S. (2004). Do loose lips sink ships? The meaning, antecedents and consequences of rumour and gossip in organisations. Corp. Commun. 9, 189–201. 10.1108/13563280410551114

Michelson G. Van Iterson A. Waddington K. (2010). Gossip in organizations: contexts, consequences, and controversies. Group Organiz. Manag. 35, 371–390. 10.1177/1059601109360389

Mischel W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation, in Personality at the Crossroads: Current Issues in Interactional Psychology, eds Magnusson D. Endler N. S. (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.), 333–352.

Morf C. C. Rhodewalt F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: a dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychol. Inq. 12, 177–196. 10.1207/S15327965PLI1204_1

Muris P. Merckelbach H. Otgaar H. Meijer E. (2017). The malevolent side of human nature: a meta-analysis and critical review of the literature on the dark triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12, 183–204. 10.1177/1745691616666070

Nathanson C. Paulhus D. L. Williams K. M. (2006). Predictors of a behavioral measure of scholastic cheating: personality and competence but not demographics. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 31, 97–122. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.03.001

Noser A. E. Zeigler-Hill V. Vrabel J. K. Besser A. Ewing T. D. Southard A. C. (2015). Dark and immoral: the links between pathological personality features and moral values. Pers. Individ. Dif. 75, 30–35. 10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.010

Nuzzo R. L. (2017). An introduction to Bayesian data analysis for correlations. PMandR 9, 1278–1282. 10.1016/j.pmrj.2017.11.00329274678

O‘Boyle E. H. Forsyth D. R. Banks G. C. Mcdaniel M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: a social exchange perspective. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:557. 10.1037/a002567922023075

Paulhus D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: a mixed blessing? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74:1197. 10.1037//0022-3514.74.5.11979599439

Peng X. Li Y. Wang P. Mo L. Chen Q. (2015). The ugly truth: negative gossip about celebrities and positive gossip about self entertain people in different ways. Soc. Neurosci. 10, 320–336. 10.1080/17470919.2014.99916225580932

Peters K. Jetten J. Radova D. Austin K. (2017). Gossiping about deviance: evidence that deviance spurs the gossip that builds bonds. Psychol. Sci. 28, 1610–1619. 10.1177/095679761771691828898164

Peters K. Kashima Y. (2013). Gossiping as moral social action: a functionalist account of gossiper perceptions, in Social Cognition and Communication, , eds Forgas J. P. Vincze O. Laszlo J. (New York, NY: Psychology Press), 185–202.

Peters K. Kashima Y. (2015). Bad habit or social good? How perceptions of gossiper morality are related to gossip content. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 45, 784–798. 10.1002/ejsp.2123

Piazza J. Bering J. M. (2008). Concerns about reputation via gossip promote generous allocations in an economic game. Evol. Hum. Behav. 29, 172–178. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.12.002

Privitera C. Campbell M. A. (2009). Cyberbullying: the new face of workplace bullying? CyberPsychol. Behav. 12, 395–400. 10.1089/cpb.2009.002519594381

Rodrigues C. Merz M. Steininger D. Beeser C. Terpelle-Winkelhusener F. (2019). Welche Motive Führen zu Gossip und Welche Emotionen Begleiten uns Dabei und Resultieren Daraus? Unpublished Research report, Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences, Kamp-Lintfort, Germany.

Roeser K. McGregor V. E. Stegmaier S. Mathew J. Kubler A. Meule A. (2016). The Dark Triad of personality and unethical behavior at different times of day. Pers. Individ. Dif. 88, 73–77. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.002

Salin D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: a review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Hum. Relat. 56, 1213–1232. 10.1177/00187267035610003

Schafer J. L. Graham J. W. (2002). Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol. Methods 7:147. 10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.14712090408

Schwarz N. (1999). Self-reports: how the question shapes the answer. Am. Psychol. 54, 93–105. 10.1037/0003-066X.54.2.93

Schwarz N. Bless H. (1991). Constructing Reality and Its Alternatives: An Inclusion/ Exclusion Model of Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Social Judgment (ZUMA-Arbeitsbericht, 1991/05). Mannheim: Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen -ZUMA-. Available online at: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-68883.

Schwarz N. Bless H. (1992). Scandals and the public's trust in politicians: assimilation and contrast effects. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 18, 574–579. 10.1177/0146167292185007

Schwarz N. Strack F. Mai H. (1991). Assimilation and contrast effects in part whole question sequences: a conversational logic analysis. Public Opin. Q. 55, 3–23. 10.1086/269239

Semenyna S. W. Honey P. L. (2015). Dominance styles mediate sex differences in Dark Triad traits. Pers. Individ. Dif. 83, 37–43. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.046

Sommerfeld R. D. Krambeck H.-J. Semmann D. Milinski M. (2007). Gossip as an alternative for direct observation in games of indirect reciprocity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 17435–17440. 10.1073/pnas.070459810417947384

Sudman S. Bradburn N. Schwarz N. (1996). Thinking About Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Suls J. M. (1977). Gossip as social comparison. J. Commun. 27, 164–168. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1977.tb01812.x

Swann W. B. Stephenson B. Pittman T. S. (1981). Curiosity and control: on the determinants of the search for social knowledge. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 40, 635. 10.1037/0022-3514.40.4.635

Tourangeau R. (2000). Remembering what happened: Memory errors and survey reports, in The Science of Self-Report: Implications for Research and Practice, eds Stone A. A. Turkkan J. S. Bachrach C. A. Jobe J. B. Kurtzman H. S. Cain V. S. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 29–47.

van de Schoot R. Kaplan D. Denissen J. Asendorpf J. B. Neyer F. J. van Aken M. (2013). A gentle introduction to bayesian analysis: applications to developmental research. Child Dev. 85, 842–860. 10.1111/cdev.1216924116396

Waddington K. (2005). Using diaries to explore the characteristics of work-related gossip: methodological considerations from exploratory multimethod research. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 78, 221–236. 10.1348/096317905X40817

Waddington K. Fletcher C. (2005). Gossip and emotion in nursing and health-care organizations. J. Health Organ. Manag. 19, 378–394. 10.1108/1477726051061540416206920

Wagenmakers E. J. Love J. Marsman M. Jamil T. Ly A. Verhagen J. . (2018a). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part II: Example applications with JASP. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 25, 58–76. 10.3758/s13423-017-1323-728685272

Wagenmakers E. J. Marsman M. Jamil T. Ly A. Verhagen J. Love J. . (2018b). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 25, 35–57. 10.3758/s13423-017-1343-328779455

Watson D. C. (2011). Gossip and the self. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 41, 1818–1833. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00772.x

Williams K. M. Nathanson C. Paulhus D. L. (2010). Identifying and profiling scholastic cheaters: their personality, cognitive ability, and motivation. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 16:293. 10.1037/a002077320853988

Wisse B. Sleebos E. (2016). When the dark ones gain power: perceived position power strengthens the effect of supervisor Machiavellianism on abusive supervision in work teams. Pers. Individ. Dif. 99, 122–126. 10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.019

Wu J. Balliet D. Van Lange P. A. (2016). Reputation, gossip, and human cooperation. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 10, 350–364. 10.1111/spc3.12255

Yukl G. Falbe C. M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. J. Appl. Psychol. 75:132. 10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.132



Appendix

      The German Version of the Revised Motives to Gossip Questionnaire
      

      In unserem privaten Alltag kommt es häufig vor, dass wir über eine dritte Person sprechen, die nicht anwesend ist. Denken Sie an eine vergangene Situation in Ihrem privaten Alltag, in der Sie Teil eines solchen Gesprächs (über eine abwesende Person) waren. Halten Sie sich diese Situation im Folgenden vor Augen und denken Sie an Gründe, die Sie für das Gespräch hatten. Nehmen Sie dementsprechend Stellung zu folgenden Aussagen:
      

      Ich habe an dieser Unterhaltung aus folgenden Gründen teilgenommen …


      IV  …um herauszufinden ob die Person, mit der ich gesprochen habe, genauso über die abwesende Person denkt.
      

      IV  …um unsere Gedanken über die abwesende Person zu vergleichen.
      

      IV  …um herauszufinden, ob die Person, mit der ich gesprochen habe, meiner Meinung ist.
      

      IG  …um Informationen über die abwesende Person zu sammeln.
      

      IG  …um Neuigkeiten über die abwesende Person in Erfahrung zu bringen.
      

      IG  …um Auskünfte über die abwesende Person einzuholen.
      

      RB  …um die Beziehung zu der Person, mit der ich geredet habe, zu vertiefen.
      

      RB  …um das Vertrauen der Person, mit der ich geredet habe, zu gewinnen.
      

      RB  …um mich mit der Person, mit der ich geredet habe, gut zu stellen.
      

      P     …um die Person, mit der ich gesprochen habe, vor der abwesenden Person zu schützen.
      

      P     …um die Person, mit der ich gesprochen habe, davor zu schützen von der abwesenden Person ausgenutzt zu werden.
      

      P     …um die Person, mit der ich gesprochen habe, vor dem Verhalten der abwesenden Person zu warnen.
      

      SE  …zum Vergnügen.
      

      SE  …weil es mir Spaß bereitet hat.
      

      SE  …weil wir uns die Zeit vertreiben wollten.
      

      NI  …um die abwesende Person in einem schlechten Licht darzustellen.
      

      NI  …um schlecht über die abwesende Person zu sprechen.
      

      NI  …um den Ruf der abwesenden Person zu schädigen.
      

      

      Respondents indicate the degree to which they agree on a 7-point scale (1 = trifft überhaupt nicht zu, 7 = trifft voll zu). For the work-related situation the term “private” (“privat”) was replaced with “work-related” (“beruflich”).
      
      
      
      

      ‘Oh, my dear Thomas, you haven’t heard the terrible news then?’ she said. ‘I thought you would be sure to have seen it placarded somewhere. Alice went straight to her room, and I haven’t seen her since, though I repeatedly knocked at the door, which she has locked on the inside, and I’m sure it’s most unnatural of her not to let her own mother comfort her. It all happened in a moment: I have always said those great motor-cars shouldn’t be allowed to career about the streets, especially when they are all paved with cobbles as they are at Easton Haven, which are{331} so slippery when it’s wet. He slipped, and it went over him in a moment.’    My thanks were few and awkward, for there still hung to the missive a basting thread, and it was as warm as a nestling bird. I bent low--everybody was emotional in those days--kissed the fragrant thing, thrust it into my bosom, and blushed worse than Camille.  "What, the Corner House victim? Is that really a fact?" "My dear child, I don't look upon it in that light at all. The child gave our picturesque friend a certain distinction--'My husband is dead, and this is my only child,' and all that sort of thing. It pays in society." leave them on the steps of a foundling asylum in order to insure   [See larger version]    Interoffice guff says you're planning definite moves on your own, J. O., and against some opposition. Is the Colonel so poor or so grasping—or what? Albert could not speak, for he felt as if his brains and teeth were rattling about inside his head. The rest of[Pg 188] the family hunched together by the door, the boys gaping idiotically, the girls in tears. "Now you're married." The host was called in, and unlocked a drawer in which they were deposited. The galleyman, with visible reluctance, arrayed himself in the garments, and he was observed to shudder more than once during the investiture of the dead man's apparel. HoME香京julia种子在线播放
ENTER NUMBET 0016www.igotlm.com.cn
      
engron.com.cn
      
maizishule.com.cn
      
www.hyboao.com.cn
      
jcbjsj.com.cn
      
www.shenyanyi.com.cn
      
wcnzne.com.cn
      
sifanxi.com.cn
      
nbfxj.net.cn
      
xalywz.com.cn
      
   

      

 
      

      
      

      

      

 
      
处女被大鸡巴操 强奸乱伦小说图片 俄罗斯美女爱爱图 调教强奸学生 亚洲女的穴 夜来香图片大全 美女性强奸电影 手机版色中阁 男性人体艺术素描图 16p成人 欧美性爱360 电影区 亚洲电影 欧美电影 经典三级 偷拍自拍 动漫电影 乱伦电影 变态另类 全部电 类似狠狠鲁的网站 黑吊操白逼图片 韩国黄片种子下载 操逼逼逼逼逼 人妻 小说 p 偷拍10幼女自慰 极品淫水很多 黄色做i爱 日本女人人体电影快播看 大福国小 我爱肏屄美女 mmcrwcom 欧美多人性交图片 肥臀乱伦老头舔阴帝 d09a4343000019c5 西欧人体艺术b xxoo激情短片  未成年人的 插泰国人夭图片 第770弾み1 24p 日本美女性 交动态 eee色播 yantasythunder 操无毛少女屄 亚洲图片你懂的女人 鸡巴插姨娘 特级黄 色大片播 左耳影音先锋 冢本友希全集 日本人体艺术绿色 我爱被舔逼 内射 幼 美阴图 喷水妹子高潮迭起 和后妈 操逼 美女吞鸡巴 鸭个自慰 中国女裸名单 操逼肥臀出水换妻 色站裸体义术 中国行上的漏毛美女叫什么 亚洲妹性交图 欧美美女人裸体人艺照 成人色妹妹直播 WWW_JXCT_COM r日本女人性淫乱 大胆人艺体艺图片 女同接吻av 碰碰哥免费自拍打炮 艳舞写真duppid1 88电影街拍视频 日本自拍做爱qvod 实拍美女性爱组图 少女高清av 浙江真实乱伦迅雷 台湾luanlunxiaoshuo 洛克王国宠物排行榜 皇瑟电影yy频道大全 红孩儿连连看 阴毛摄影 大胆美女写真人体艺术摄影 和风骚三个媳妇在家做爱 性爱办公室高清 18p2p木耳 大波撸影音 大鸡巴插嫩穴小说 一剧不超两个黑人 阿姨诱惑我快播 幼香阁千叶县小学生 少女妇女被狗强奸 曰人体妹妹 十二岁性感幼女 超级乱伦qvod 97爱蜜桃ccc336 日本淫妇阴液 av海量资源999 凤凰影视成仁 辰溪四中艳照门照片 先锋模特裸体展示影片 成人片免费看 自拍百度云 肥白老妇女 女爱人体图片 妈妈一女穴 星野美夏 日本少女dachidu 妹子私处人体图片 yinmindahuitang 舔无毛逼影片快播 田莹疑的裸体照片 三级电影影音先锋02222 妻子被外国老头操 观月雏乃泥鳅 韩国成人偷拍自拍图片 强奸5一9岁幼女小说 汤姆影院av图片 妹妹人艺体图 美女大驱 和女友做爱图片自拍p 绫川まどか在线先锋 那么嫩的逼很少见了 小女孩做爱 处女好逼连连看图图 性感美女在家做爱 近距离抽插骚逼逼 黑屌肏金毛屄 日韩av美少女 看喝尿尿小姐日逼色色色网图片 欧美肛交新视频 美女吃逼逼 av30线上免费 伊人在线三级经典 新视觉影院t6090影院 最新淫色电影网址 天龙影院远古手机版 搞老太影院 插进美女的大屁股里 私人影院加盟费用 www258dd 求一部电影里面有一个二猛哥 深肛交 日本萌妹子人体艺术写真图片 插入屄眼 美女的木奶 中文字幕黄色网址影视先锋 九号女神裸 和骚人妻偷情 和潘晓婷做爱 国模大尺度蜜桃 欧美大逼50p 西西人体成人 李宗瑞继母做爱原图物处理 nianhuawang 男鸡巴的视屏 � 97免费色伦电影 好色网成人 大姨子先锋 淫荡巨乳美女教师妈妈 性nuexiaoshuo WWW36YYYCOM 长春继续给力进屋就操小女儿套干破内射对白淫荡 农夫激情社区 日韩无码bt 欧美美女手掰嫩穴图片 日本援交偷拍自拍 入侵者日本在线播放 亚洲白虎偷拍自拍 常州高见泽日屄 寂寞少妇自卫视频 人体露逼图片 多毛外国老太 变态乱轮手机在线 淫荡妈妈和儿子操逼 伦理片大奶少女 看片神器最新登入地址sqvheqi345com账号群 麻美学姐无头 圣诞老人射小妞和强奸小妞动话片 亚洲AV女老师 先锋影音欧美成人资源 33344iucoom zV天堂电影网 宾馆美女打炮视频 色五月丁香五月magnet 嫂子淫乱小说 张歆艺的老公 吃奶男人视频在线播放 欧美色图男女乱伦 avtt2014ccvom 性插色欲香影院 青青草撸死你青青草 99热久久第一时间 激情套图卡通动漫 幼女裸聊做爱口交 日本女人被强奸乱伦 草榴社区快播 2kkk正在播放兽骑 啊不要人家小穴都湿了 www猎奇影视 A片www245vvcomwwwchnrwhmhzcn 搜索宜春院av wwwsee78co 逼奶鸡巴插 好吊日AV在线视频19gancom 熟女伦乱图片小说 日本免费av无码片在线开苞 鲁大妈撸到爆 裸聊官网 德国熟女xxx 新不夜城论坛首页手机 女虐男网址 男女做爱视频华为网盘 激情午夜天亚洲色图 内裤哥mangent 吉沢明歩制服丝袜WWWHHH710COM 屌逼在线试看 人体艺体阿娇艳照 推荐一个可以免费看片的网站如果被QQ拦截请复制链接在其它浏览器打开xxxyyy5comintr2a2cb551573a2b2e 欧美360精品粉红鲍鱼 教师调教第一页 聚美屋精品图 中韩淫乱群交 俄罗斯撸撸片 把鸡巴插进小姨子的阴道 干干AV成人网 aolasoohpnbcn www84ytom 高清大量潮喷www27dyycom 宝贝开心成人 freefronvideos人母 嫩穴成人网gggg29com 逼着舅妈给我口交肛交彩漫画 欧美色色aV88wwwgangguanscom 老太太操逼自拍视频 777亚洲手机在线播放 有没有夫妻3p小说 色列漫画淫女 午间色站导航 欧美成人处女色大图 童颜巨乳亚洲综合 桃色性欲草 色眯眯射逼 无码中文字幕塞外青楼这是一个 狂日美女老师人妻 爱碰网官网 亚洲图片雅蠛蝶 快播35怎么搜片 2000XXXX电影 新谷露性家庭影院 深深候dvd播放 幼齿用英语怎么说 不雅伦理无需播放器 国外淫荡图片 国外网站幼幼嫩网址 成年人就去色色视频快播 我鲁日日鲁老老老我爱 caoshaonvbi 人体艺术avav 性感性色导航 韩国黄色哥来嫖网站 成人网站美逼 淫荡熟妇自拍 欧美色惰图片 北京空姐透明照 狼堡免费av视频 www776eom 亚洲无码av欧美天堂网男人天堂 欧美激情爆操 a片kk266co 色尼姑成人极速在线视频 国语家庭系列 蒋雯雯 越南伦理 色CC伦理影院手机版 99jbbcom 大鸡巴舅妈 国产偷拍自拍淫荡对话视频 少妇春梦射精 开心激动网 自拍偷牌成人 色桃隐 撸狗网性交视频 淫荡的三位老师 伦理电影wwwqiuxia6commqiuxia6com 怡春院分站 丝袜超短裙露脸迅雷下载 色制服电影院 97超碰好吊色男人 yy6080理论在线宅男日韩福利大全 大嫂丝袜 500人群交手机在线 5sav 偷拍熟女吧 口述我和妹妹的欲望 50p电脑版 wwwavtttcon 3p3com 伦理无码片在线看 欧美成人电影图片岛国性爱伦理电影 先锋影音AV成人欧美 我爱好色 淫电影网 WWW19MMCOM 玛丽罗斯3d同人动画h在线看 动漫女孩裸体 超级丝袜美腿乱伦 1919gogo欣赏 大色逼淫色 www就是撸 激情文学网好骚 A级黄片免费 xedd5com 国内的b是黑的 快播美国成年人片黄 av高跟丝袜视频 上原保奈美巨乳女教师在线观看 校园春色都市激情fefegancom 偷窥自拍XXOO 搜索看马操美女 人本女优视频 日日吧淫淫 人妻巨乳影院 美国女子性爱学校 大肥屁股重口味 啪啪啪啊啊啊不要 操碰 japanfreevideoshome国产 亚州淫荡老熟女人体 伦奸毛片免费在线看 天天影视se 樱桃做爱视频 亚卅av在线视频 x奸小说下载 亚洲色图图片在线 217av天堂网 东方在线撸撸-百度 幼幼丝袜集 灰姑娘的姐姐 青青草在线视频观看对华 86papa路con 亚洲1AV 综合图片2区亚洲 美国美女大逼电影 010插插av成人网站 www色comwww821kxwcom 播乐子成人网免费视频在线观看 大炮撸在线影院 ，www4KkKcom 野花鲁最近30部 wwwCC213wapwww2233ww2download 三客优最新地址 母亲让儿子爽的无码视频 全国黄色片子 欧美色图美国十次 超碰在线直播 性感妖娆操 亚洲肉感熟女色图 a片A毛片管看视频 8vaa褋芯屑 333kk 川岛和津实视频 在线母子乱伦对白 妹妹肥逼五月 亚洲美女自拍 老婆在我面前小说 韩国空姐堪比情趣内衣 干小姐综合 淫妻色五月 添骚穴 WM62COM 23456影视播放器 成人午夜剧场 尼姑福利网 AV区亚洲AV欧美AV512qucomwwwc5508com 经典欧美骚妇 震动棒露出 日韩丝袜美臀巨乳在线 av无限吧看 就去干少妇 色艺无间正面是哪集 校园春色我和老师做爱 漫画夜色 天海丽白色吊带 黄色淫荡性虐小说 午夜高清播放器 文20岁女性荫道口图片 热国产热无码热有码 2015小明发布看看算你色 百度云播影视 美女肏屄屄乱轮小说 家族舔阴AV影片 邪恶在线av有码 父女之交 关于处女破处的三级片 极品护士91在线 欧美虐待女人视频的网站 享受老太太的丝袜 aaazhibuo 8dfvodcom成人 真实自拍足交 群交男女猛插逼 妓女爱爱动态 lin35com是什么网站 abp159 亚洲色图偷拍自拍乱伦熟女抠逼自慰 朝国三级篇 淫三国幻想 免费的av小电影网站 日本阿v视频免费按摩师 av750c0m 黄色片操一下 巨乳少女车震在线观看 操逼 免费 囗述情感一乱伦岳母和女婿 WWW_FAMITSU_COM  偷拍中国少妇在公车被操视频 花也真衣论理电影 大鸡鸡插p洞 新片欧美十八岁美少 进击的巨人神thunderftp 西方美女15p 深圳哪里易找到老女人玩视频 在线成人有声小说 365rrr 女尿图片 我和淫荡的小姨做爱 � 做爱技术体照 淫妇性爱 大学生私拍b 第四射狠狠射小说 色中色成人av社区 和小姨子乱伦肛交 wwwppp62com 俄罗斯巨乳人体艺术 骚逼阿娇 汤芳人体图片大胆 大胆人体艺术bb私处 性感大胸骚货 哪个网站幼女的片多 日本美女本子把 色 五月天 婷婷 快播 美女  美穴艺术 色百合电影导航 大鸡巴用力 孙悟空操美少女战士 狠狠撸美女手掰穴图片 古代女子与兽类交 沙耶香套图 激情成人网区 暴风影音av播放 动漫女孩怎么插第3个 mmmpp44 黑木麻衣无码ed2k 淫荡学姐少妇 乱伦操少女屄 高中性爱故事 骚妹妹爱爱图网 韩国模特剪长发 大鸡巴把我逼日了 中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片 大胆女人下体艺术图片 789sss 影音先锋在线国内情侣野外性事自拍普通话对白 群撸图库 闪现君打阿乐 ady 小说 插入表妹嫩穴小说 推荐成人资源 网络播放器 成人台 149大胆人体艺术 大屌图片 骚美女成人av 春暖花开春色性吧 女亭婷五月 我上了同桌的姐姐 恋夜秀场主播自慰视频 yzppp 屄茎 操屄女图 美女鲍鱼大特写 淫乱的日本人妻山口玲子 偷拍射精图 性感美女人体艺木图片 种马小说完本 免费电影院 骑士福利导航导航网站 骚老婆足交 国产性爱一级电影 欧美免费成人花花性都 欧美大肥妞性爱视频 家庭乱伦网站快播 偷拍自拍国产毛片 金发美女也用大吊来开包 缔D杏那 yentiyishu人体艺术ytys WWWUUKKMCOM 女人露奶 � 苍井空露逼 老荡妇高跟丝袜足交 偷偷和女友的朋友做爱迅雷 做爱七十二尺 朱丹人体合成 麻腾由纪妃 帅哥撸播种子图 鸡巴插逼动态图片 羙国十次啦中文 WWW137AVCOM 神斗片欧美版华语 有气质女人人休艺术 由美老师放屁电影 欧美女人肉肏图片 白虎种子快播 国产自拍90后女孩 美女在床上疯狂嫩b 饭岛爱最后之作 幼幼强奸摸奶 色97成人动漫 两性性爱打鸡巴插逼 新视觉影院4080青苹果影院 嗯好爽插死我了 阴口艺术照 李宗瑞电影qvod38 爆操舅母 亚洲色图七七影院 被大鸡巴操菊花 怡红院肿么了 成人极品影院删除 欧美性爱大图色图强奸乱 欧美女子与狗随便性交 苍井空的bt种子无码 熟女乱伦长篇小说 大色虫 兽交幼女影音先锋播放 44aad be0ca93900121f9b 先锋天耗ばさ无码 欧毛毛女三级黄色片图 干女人黑木耳照 日本美女少妇嫩逼人体艺术 sesechangchang 色屄屄网 久久撸app下载 色图色噜 美女鸡巴大奶 好吊日在线视频在线观看 透明丝袜脚偷拍自拍 中山怡红院菜单 wcwwwcom下载 骑嫂子 亚洲大色妣 成人故事365ahnet 丝袜家庭教mp4 幼交肛交 妹妹撸撸大妈 日本毛爽 caoprom超碰在email 关于中国古代偷窥的黄片 第一会所老熟女下载 wwwhuangsecome 狼人干综合新地址HD播放 变态儿子强奸乱伦图 强奸电影名字 2wwwer37com 日本毛片基地一亚洲AVmzddcxcn 暗黑圣经仙桃影院 37tpcocn 持月真由xfplay 好吊日在线视频三级网 我爱背入李丽珍 电影师傅床戏在线观看 96插妹妹sexsex88com 豪放家庭在线播放 桃花宝典极夜著豆瓜网 安卓系统播放神器 美美网丝袜诱惑 人人干全免费视频xulawyercn av无插件一本道 全国色五月 操逼电影小说网 good在线wwwyuyuelvcom www18avmmd 撸波波影视无插件 伊人幼女成人电影 会看射的图片 小明插看看 全裸美女扒开粉嫩b 国人自拍性交网站 萝莉白丝足交本子 七草ちとせ巨乳视频 摇摇晃晃的成人电影 兰桂坊成社人区小说www68kqcom 舔阴论坛 久撸客一撸客色国内外成人激情在线 明星门 欧美大胆嫩肉穴爽大片 www牛逼插 性吧星云 少妇性奴的屁眼 人体艺术大胆mscbaidu1imgcn 最新久久色色成人版 l女同在线 小泽玛利亚高潮图片搜索 女性裸b图 肛交bt种子 最热门有声小说 人间添春色 春色猜谜字 樱井莉亚钢管舞视频 小泽玛利亚直美6p 能用的h网 还能看的h网 bl动漫h网 开心五月激 东京热401 男色女色第四色酒色网 怎么下载黄色小说 黄色小说小栽 和谐图城 乐乐影院 色哥导航 特色导航 依依社区 爱窝窝在线 色狼谷成人 91porn 包要你射电影 色色3A丝袜 丝袜妹妹淫网 爱色导航(荐) 好男人激情影院 坏哥哥 第七色 色久久 人格分裂 急先锋 撸撸射中文网 第一会所综合社区 91影院老师机 东方成人激情 怼莪影院吹潮 老鸭窝伊人无码不卡无码一本道 av女柳晶电影 91天生爱风流作品 深爱激情小说私房婷婷网 擼奶av 567pao 里番3d一家人野外 上原在线电影 水岛津实透明丝袜 1314酒色 网旧网俺也去 0855影院 在线无码私人影院 搜索 国产自拍 神马dy888午夜伦理达达兔 农民工黄晓婷 日韩裸体黑丝御姐 屈臣氏的燕窝面膜怎么样つぼみ晶エリーの早漏チ○ポ强化合宿 老熟女人性视频 影音先锋 三上悠亚ol 妹妹影院福利片 hhhhhhhhsxo 午夜天堂热的国产 强奸剧场 全裸香蕉视频无码 亚欧伦理视频 秋霞为什么给封了 日本在线视频空天使 日韩成人aⅴ在线 日本日屌日屄导航视频 在线福利视频 日本推油无码av magnet 在线免费视频 樱井梨吮东 日本一本道在线无码DVD 日本性感诱惑美女做爱阴道流水视频 日本一级av 汤姆avtom在线视频 台湾佬中文娱乐线20 阿v播播下载 橙色影院 奴隶少女护士cg视频 汤姆在线影院无码 偷拍宾馆 业面紧急生级访问 色和尚有线 厕所偷拍一族 av女l 公交色狼优酷视频 裸体视频AV 人与兽肉肉网 董美香ol 花井美纱链接 magnet 西瓜影音 亚洲 自拍 日韩女优欧美激情偷拍自拍 亚洲成年人免费视频 荷兰免费成人电影 深喉呕吐XXⅩX 操石榴在线视频 天天色成人免费视频 314hu四虎 涩久免费视频在线观看 成人电影迅雷下载 能看见整个奶子的香蕉影院 水菜丽百度影音 gwaz079百度云 噜死你们资源站 主播走光视频合集迅雷下载 thumbzilla jappen 精品Av 古川伊织star598在线 假面女皇vip在线视频播放 国产自拍迷情校园 啪啪啪公寓漫画 日本阿AV 黄色手机电影 欧美在线Av影院 华裔电击女神91在线 亚洲欧美专区 1日本1000部免费视频 开放90后 波多野结衣 东方 影院av 页面升级紧急访问每天正常更新 4438Xchengeren 老炮色 a k福利电影 色欲影视色天天视频 高老庄aV 259LUXU-683 magnet 手机在线电影 国产区 欧美激情人人操网 国产 偷拍 直播 日韩 国内外激情在线视频网给 站长统计一本道人妻 光棍影院被封 紫竹铃取汁 ftp 狂插空姐嫩 xfplay 丈夫面前 穿靴子伪街 XXOO视频在线免费 大香蕉道久在线播放 电棒漏电嗨过头 充气娃能看下毛和洞吗 夫妻牲交 福利云点墦 yukun瑟妃 疯狂交换女友 国产自拍26页 腐女资源 百度云 日本DVD高清无码视频 偷拍,自拍AV伦理电影 A片小视频福利站。 大奶肥婆自拍偷拍图片 交配伊甸园 超碰在线视频自拍偷拍国产 小热巴91大神 rctd 045 类似于A片 超美大奶大学生美女直播被男友操 男友问 你的衣服怎么脱掉的 亚洲女与黑人群交视频一 在线黄涩 木内美保步兵番号 鸡巴插入欧美美女的b舒服 激情在线国产自拍日韩欧美 国语福利小视频在线观看 作爱小视颍 潮喷合集丝袜无码mp4 做爱的无码高清视频 牛牛精品 伊aⅤ在线观看 savk12 哥哥搞在线播放 在线电一本道影 一级谍片 250pp亚洲情艺中心,88 欧美一本道九色在线一 wwwseavbacom色av吧 cos美女在线 欧美17,18ⅹⅹⅹ视频 自拍嫩逼 小电影在线观看网站 筱田优 贼 水电工 5358x视频 日本69式视频有码 b雪福利导航 韩国女主播19tvclub在线 操逼清晰视频 丝袜美女国产视频网址导航 水菜丽颜射房间 台湾妹中文娱乐网 风吟岛视频 口交 伦理 日本熟妇色五十路免费视频 A级片互舔 川村真矢Av在线观看 亚洲日韩av 色和尚国产自拍 sea8 mp4 aV天堂2018手机在线 免费版国产偷拍a在线播放 狠狠 婷婷 丁香 小视频福利在线观看平台 思妍白衣小仙女被邻居强上 萝莉自拍有水 4484新视觉 永久发布页 977成人影视在线观看 小清新影院在线观 小鸟酱后丝后入百度云 旋风魅影四级 香蕉影院小黄片免费看 性爱直播磁力链接 小骚逼第一色影院 性交流的视频 小雪小视频bd 小视频TV禁看视频 迷奸AV在线看 nba直播 任你在干线 汤姆影院在线视频国产 624u在线播放 成人 一级a做爰片就在线看狐狸视频 小香蕉AV视频 www182、com 腿模简小育 学生做爱视频 秘密搜查官 快播 成人福利网午夜 一级黄色夫妻录像片 直接看的gav久久播放器 国产自拍400首页 sm老爹影院 谁知道隔壁老王网址在线 综合网 123西瓜影音 米奇丁香 人人澡人人漠大学生 色久悠 夜色视频你今天寂寞了吗? 菲菲影视城美国 被抄的影院 变态另类 欧美 成人 国产偷拍自拍在线小说 不用下载安装就能看的吃男人鸡巴视频 插屄视频 大贯杏里播放 wwwhhh50 233若菜奈央 伦理片天海翼秘密搜查官 大香蕉在线万色屋视频 那种漫画小说你懂的 祥仔电影合集一区 那里可以看澳门皇冠酒店a片 色自啪 亚洲aV电影天堂 谷露影院ar toupaizaixian sexbj。com 毕业生 zaixian mianfei 朝桐光视频 成人短视频在线直接观看 陈美霖 沈阳音乐学院 导航女 www26yjjcom 1大尺度视频 开平虐女视频 菅野雪松协和影视在线视频 华人play在线视频bbb 鸡吧操屄视频 多啪啪免费视频 悠草影院 金兰策划网 (969) 橘佑金短视频 国内一极刺激自拍片 日本制服番号大全magnet 成人动漫母系 电脑怎么清理内存 黄色福利1000 dy88午夜 偷拍中学生洗澡磁力链接 花椒相机福利美女视频 站长推荐磁力下载 mp4 三洞轮流插视频 玉兔miki热舞视频 夜生活小视频 爆乳人妖小视频 国内网红主播自拍福利迅雷下载 不用app的裸裸体美女操逼视频 变态SM影片在线观看 草溜影院元气吧 - 百度 - 百度 波推全套视频 国产双飞集合ftp 日本在线AV网 笔国毛片 神马影院女主播是我的邻居 影音资源 激情乱伦电影 799pao 亚洲第一色第一影院 av视频大香蕉 老梁故事汇希斯莱杰 水中人体磁力链接 下载 大香蕉黄片免费看 济南谭崔 避开屏蔽的岛a片 草破福利 要看大鸡巴操小骚逼的人的视频 黑丝少妇影音先锋 欧美巨乳熟女磁力链接 美国黄网站色大全 伦蕉在线久播 极品女厕沟 激情五月bd韩国电影 混血美女自摸和男友激情啪啪自拍诱人呻吟福利视频 人人摸人人妻做人人看 44kknn 娸娸原网 伊人欧美 恋夜影院视频列表安卓青青 57k影院 如果电话亭 avi 插爆骚女精品自拍 青青草在线免费视频1769TV 令人惹火的邻家美眉 影音先锋 真人妹子被捅动态图 男人女人做完爱视频15 表姐合租两人共处一室晚上她竟爬上了我的床 性爱教学视频 北条麻妃bd在线播放版 国产老师和师生 magnet wwwcctv1024 女神自慰 ftp 女同性恋做激情视频 欧美大胆露阴视频 欧美无码影视 好女色在线观看 后入肥臀18p 百度影视屏福利 厕所超碰视频 强奸mp magnet 欧美妹aⅴ免费线上看 2016年妞干网视频 5手机在线福利 超在线最视频 800av:cOm magnet 欧美性爱免播放器在线播放 91大款肥汤的性感美乳90后邻家美眉趴着窗台后入啪啪 秋霞日本毛片网站 cheng ren 在线视频 上原亚衣肛门无码解禁影音先锋 美脚家庭教师在线播放 尤酷伦理片 熟女性生活视频在线观看 欧美av在线播放喷潮 194avav 凤凰AV成人 - 百度 kbb9999 AV片AV在线AV无码 爱爱视频高清免费观看 黄色男女操b视频 观看 18AV清纯视频在线播放平台 成人性爱视频久久操 女性真人生殖系统双性人视频 下身插入b射精视频 明星潜规测视频 mp4 免賛a片直播绪 国内 自己 偷拍 在线 国内真实偷拍 手机在线 国产主播户外勾在线 三桥杏奈高清无码迅雷下载 2五福电影院凸凹频频 男主拿鱼打女主,高宝宝 色哥午夜影院 川村まや痴汉 草溜影院费全过程免费 淫小弟影院在线视频 laohantuiche 啪啪啪喷潮XXOO视频 青娱乐成人国产 蓝沢润 一本道 亚洲青涩中文欧美 神马影院线理论 米娅卡莉法的av 在线福利65535 欧美粉色在线 欧美性受群交视频1在线播放 极品喷奶熟妇在线播放 变态另类无码福利影院92 天津小姐被偷拍 磁力下载 台湾三级电髟全部 丝袜美腿偷拍自拍 偷拍女生性行为图 妻子的乱伦 白虎少妇 肏婶骚屄 外国大妈会阴照片 美少女操屄图片 妹妹自慰11p 操老熟女的b 361美女人体 360电影院樱桃 爱色妹妹亚洲色图 性交卖淫姿势高清图片一级 欧美一黑对二白 大色网无毛一线天 射小妹网站 寂寞穴 西西人体模特苍井空 操的大白逼吧 骚穴让我操 拉好友干女朋友3p