Research on Gossip: Taxonomy, Methods, and Future Directions

Review of General Psychology Copyright 2004 by the Educational Publishing Foundation 2004, Vol. 8, No. 2, 78–99 1089-2680/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.78 Research on Gossip: Taxonomy, Methods, and Future Directions Eric K. Foster University of Pennsylvania A half century of gossip research from multiple disciplines is reviewed. Discussed are definitions of the construct; social, evolutionary, and personal functions of the practice; and data collection methods. Though people engage in the practice frequently, there has been relatively little psychological research on gossip. The layperson’s understanding of the term is included in, but insufficient to encompass, definitions used by researchers. Most data are ethnographic and discursive, and few parametric data exist. The area could benefit from better experimental methods and instruments. Neurobiological and social network analysis methods are promising foundations for further study. There are real-world implications for understanding gossip. Strengthening gossip theory and research methods will beneficially inform the way we view the practice in context. Virtually all of us frequently find ourselves Indeed, social anthropology is sometimes said producing, hearing, or otherwise participating to be the social science of gossip. Yet, gossip in evaluative comments about someone who is (and rumor, which differs primarily by always not present in the conversation. It is often valu- being speculative and sometimes pertaining to able (and sometimes unavoidable) to be part of events rather than people) has been denounced such communications. To function efficiently in from antiquity to the present. Most societies a complex social environment, humans require have explicit sanctions against gossip, and nu- information about those around them. But social merous cautionary narratives demonstrate its interconnections are complex, and it is impos- unwanted outcomes. “Whoever repeats gossip sible to be present at many primary exchanges lacks understanding” is the admonition in to absorb this kind of information directly. Ecclesiastes. “Be not a tale bearer,” Leviticus Thus, many people are eager to pick it up cautions. “Don’t gossip,” parents and teachers through an intermediary, whether or not they simply warn children. Nevertheless, unless a have the luxury and patience to confirm it later conversationalist specifically draws attention to either directly or indirectly. This phenomenon, the fact that gossiping is occurring, it is likely to of course, is called gossip. It is an important proceed relatively unhindered (Yerkovich, social behavior that nearly everyone experi- 1977). Obviously, for gossiping and the sanc- ences, contributes to, and presumably intu- tions against it to coexist, there must be value in itively understands. The purpose of this article the generation and consumption of gossip that is to review and summarize research on this outweighs the counterforce of the sanctions. phenomenon and point to some promising ways There is no denying that gossip, like rumor, to study it going forward. “can steal illusions, wreck relationships, and stir A paradox of gossip is that it is ubiquitous, up a cauldron of trouble” (Rosnow, 2001, p. though there are numerous social sanctions 203). Targets may be hurt by seeing how others against it. Anthropologists and others have doc- perceive their affairs, by distortion or manipu- umented its practice the world over (Besnier, lation of information, or by the violation of 1989; Gluckman, 1963; Haviland, 1977; Levin private matters. Many ethical condemnations of & Arluke, 1985; Loudon, 1961; Stirling, 1956). gossip revolve around presumed rules of privacy. Bok (1983), for instance, sees gossip un- equivocally as morally indefensible because of this violation. A relevant historical trivium: The Eric K. Foster, Marketing Department, The Wharton dumbwaiter was invented so that servants could School of Business, University of Pennsylvania. Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- not overhear the most private familial and busi- dressed to Eric K. Foster, 191 Presidential Boulevard PH6, ness affairs of their employers over dinner and Bala, PA 19004. E-mail: [email protected] then “retail their masters’ business” (Hecht, 78 SPECIAL ISSUE: RESEARCH ON GOSSIP 79 1956, cited in Goffman, 1959, p. 213). Misin- bruising when originating from people more formation is also at the heart of condemnations socially distant from the target and less likely to of gossip. Harrington and Bielby (1995), for be practiced by those closer to the target (who, instance, in their study of the effects of elec- as in the case of family members, might be tronic bulletin boards (precursors of Internet expected to be more direct in their chat rooms) on facets of gossip, discovered that communications). online discussions contain a greater demand for How much do people gossip? Apart from explicit referencing of verifiable sources. These obvious individual differences, the answer de- sources would compensate for the lack of other pends greatly on how the term is defined. Dun- confirmatory indicators, such as status, exper- bar, Marriott, and Duncan (1997) sampled 45 tise, interpersonal connections, direct access to conversations every 30 s while eavesdropping information, and so forth, that are generally in public. They found that “social topics” con- more available in face-to-face conversations cerning either those persons present or third with known players. Ayim (1994) also por- parties were the purpose of conversation about trayed gossipers as intent on establishing the two thirds of the time among both men and veracity of gossip, although Blumberg (1972) women. Only a small proportion (less than 5%) remarked that extensive monitoring of gossip of this conversational time was spent in critical over time is unlikely and impractical. In either remarks about third parties (i.e., malicious gos- case, the inclination to gossip covertly, anony- sip in the colloquial sense). Similarly, defining mously, or vicariously betrays an awareness of gossip as Dunbar et al. (1997) did, Emler (1994) the violation of privacy norms. Generally, peo- reported that about 70% of conversation time ple seek to guard themselves against the charge involved gossip. of indiscretion when gossiping. Both of these estimates would certainly di- An interesting counterpoint to the gossip- minish, however, if only social remarks about violates-privacy charge was articulated by people not present were the criterion. In an Schoeman (1994). He argued that gossip, far earlier article, Emler (1990), limiting his defi- from violating privacy, is in fact consistent with nition to gossip about absent persons, found that privacy norms because it attenuates direct and named acquaintances were still the most com- public conflict. People usually know they are mon topic of conversation after self-disclosure. being (or will be) talked about when deviating Slade (1997) distinguished five types of infor- from norms: “We all fully expect to be dis- mal conversation and reported that about one cussed by others who know us, with no sense of seventh (14%) of the time spent in workplace impropriety” (Schoeman, 1994, p. 80), even if coffee-break conversation consisted of gossip. we prefer not to be. Gossip provides the of- However, because she limited her definition to fended with a subtle way to pressure the of- negative gossip, the percentage would presum- fender. A public figure, for instance, may capit- ably be higher with positive remarks included. ulate to gossip for a transgression, yet be re- There is little empirical evidence that women lieved that the affair did not “get into the gossip more frequently than men (cf. Dunbar, papers.” (In the case of positive gossip about a 1993a, 1994; Eckert, 1990; Foster, 2003; Havi- person, the gossiper is spared being obsequious land, 1977; Levin & Arluke, 1985; Loudon, while buoying the target’s reputation with a 1961; Nevo, Nevo, & Derech-Zehavi, 1993); in “third-party endorsement.”) Blumberg (1972), general, any reported differences between the finding strong evidence that evaluations travel- sexes are small. ing through the network tend to stop short of Thus, with current data, it is not easy to get a their targets, concluded that a norm seems to precise fix on the amount of time that people exist “to keep people from learning too much spend gossiping. Nevertheless, it is reasonable about what others think of them” (p. 161). Wert to conclude that most people spend a nontrivial and Salovey (2004), in this issue, also acknowl- portion of their interpersonal time gossiping. edge that gossip affords one the benefits of Indeed, several writers have remarked that not various veins of social comparison while avoid- to gossip (or not to respond to gossipy overtures ing the risks of embarrassment or confrontation. with at least a modicum of interest) is to be Thus, gossip, far from violating privacy, may be quickly marginalized from the local social fab- construed as a protective social norm. It is less ric (Bergmann, 1993; Eggins & Slade, 1997; 80 FOSTER Gluckman, 1963). On the other hand, a reputa- and syllabus,” is gossip a topic typically in- tion for too much gossip may also marginalize a cluded in classroom materials (Table 1), al- person (Bergmann, 1993; Gilmore, 1978; Yerk- though psychology students certainly seem fas- ovich, 1977), perhaps because the security of cinated when it is broached in class. information passed to such a person is not as- sured, and the value of information

Load more