Review of General Psychology Copyright 2004 by the Educational Publishing Foundation 2004, Vol. 8, No. 2, 100–110 1089-2680/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.100 Gossip in Evolutionary Perspective R. I. M. Dunbar University of Liverpool Conversation is a uniquely human phenomenon. Analyses of freely forming conver- sations indicate that approximately two thirds of conversation time is devoted to social topics, most of which can be given the generic label gossip. This article first explores the origins of gossip as a mechanism for bonding social groups, tracing these origins back to social grooming among primates. It then asks why social gossip in this sense should form so important a component of human interaction and presents evidence to suggest that, aside from servicing social networks, a key function may be related explicitly to controlling free riders. Finally, the author reviews briefly the role of social cognition in facilitating conversations of this kind. For reasons that are not entirely clear, gossip To be able to make this claim, I need first to has acquired a decidedly shady reputation. It is step back in evolutionary time to what we might seen as malicious, destructive, and largely rep- see as the ancestral state from which modern rehensible. Describing a person as an “old gos- humans sprang. This is the nature of social sip” implies someone with more time on their relationships that pertain among our primate hands than they know what to do with, too cousins. I then argue that language evolved as a much hanging over the garden gate waiting for mechanism for bonding large social groups, and some passerby to pause for idle chat. To engage that it does so precisely because it allows us to in gossip is to speak ill of one’s fellows, to exchange information about the state of our interfere with the smooth running of the social social networks. In this context, the problem of relationships within which we are all embed- free riders (those who take the benefits of soci- ded: in a word, to undermine the very fabric of ality without paying the costs) is a central issue society. Yet, the term gossip itself did not orig- for which gossip provides a particularly power- inally have that meaning. It meant simply the ful mechanism of control. activity that one engaged in with one’s “god- sibs,” one’s peer group equivalent of godpar- Origins ents: in other words, those with whom one was especially close. Humans are members of the order primates, a Whether it is in fact the case that tale-telling large and diverse group of mammals of very and tittle-tattle are all that we do with our near- ancient lineage. We belong to that subgroup of est and dearest is, perhaps, a moot point. I want, primates known as the catarrhines, the Old instead, to focus on the broader nature of this World monkeys and apes. We share with these activity and argue that gossiping (though per- monkeys and apes a deep sociality that is pred- haps not gossip in its contemporary malicious icated on relatively (by comparison with other form) is the core of human social relationships, mammals and birds) advanced forms of social indeed of society itself. Without gossip, there cognition. This is represented in humans by would be no society. In short, gossip is what such phenomena as theory of mind (Astington, makes human society as we know it possible. 1993; Whiten, 1991; Wimmer & Perner, 1983) and more advanced forms of the intentional stance (Kinderman, Dunbar, & Bentall, 1998), which appear to be unique to humans (Call & Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- Tomasello, 1999; Tomasello & Call, 1998). dressed to R. I. M. Dunbar, Economic and Social Science (The “intentional stance” is the phenomenon of Research Council Research Centre in Economic Learning and Social Evolution, School of Biological Sciences, Uni- interpreting behavior in terms of the belief versity of Liverpool, Crown Street, Liverpool L69 7ZB, states of the mind that is behind the behavior, England. E-mail: [email protected] something that seems to be especially charac- 100 SPECIAL ISSUE: GOSSIP IN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE 101 teristic of humans [Dennett, 1983].) Social cog- Living together exposes animals to a number of nition in these respects is based on the reflex- stresses that include disturbances to feeding ively hierarchical phenomenon of mind-read- when one animal displaces another from a feed- ing, the ability reflected in the claim that I ing site, harassment by more dominant individ- suppose that you believe that I want you to think uals, and the generally disruptive effects that that X is the case. arise from the fact that animals in social groups The extent to which other monkeys and apes are obliged to coordinate their behavior in ways share these particular capacities is not germane that are not always ideal for each individual. to the thesis of this article. The issue is more Because the consequences of predation are so that Old World monkey and ape social relation- final for the individual, the costs of sociality ships seem to be underpinned by relatively so- must be held in check to minimize their impact; phisticated forms of social cognition that find otherwise, the centrifugal forces of individuals’ their fullest expression in the reflexive multi- selfish demands will rapidly and inevitably re- level hierarchy of intentionality that we find in sult in the dispersal of the group. Sociality, in living humans. I return to this particular issue in short, demands compromise on one’s personal, the final section; first, I simply want to establish short-term objectives so that one gains in the why it is that the capacity to exchange informa- longer term through a greatly reduced risk of tion (i.e., language) evolved at all in humans. falling victim to a predator. Anthropoid primate societies (and especially The primate solution to this problem (essen- those of the Old World monkeys and apes) are tially the need to balance short-term interests characterized by an intensity of sociality that is against the longer term gains to be had through not as conspicuous in other species. These spe- group living) is the formation of alliances. Of- cies are deeply social; they are social in a sense ten, these alliances are deeply rooted in matri- that is all too readily apparent to anyone who lineal relationships (mothers and daughters, sis- has ever taken the trouble to spend any time ters). These relationships work (and are crucial observing their behavior. This intensity of soci- in the life histories of the animals themselves) ality depends on two key phenomena. One is the because they involve a strong element of trust ability to understand something of the workings and commitment. An alliance member can be of another’s mind. By this, I do not mean to relied on to come to one’s aid at the crucial suggest that monkeys and apes understand that moment when one is under attack. That sense of other individuals have minds in the way that we obligation is created through social grooming. humans take this for granted. Theirs is more the We do not really understand how grooming ethologist’s skill at reading behavior (Cheney & makes this possible, though we do know that Seyfarth, 1990). In effect, they are good at grooming is extremely effective at releasing understanding correlations in behavior: that in- endorphins (endogenous opiates produced nat- dividuals behave in certain consistent ways that urally by the brain as part of the body’s pain can vary widely from one individual to another, control system; Keverne, Martensz, & Tuite, that others’ behavior can be deliberately manip- 1989). The flood of opiates triggered by being ulated to one’s own advantage. groomed (and perhaps even by the act of The second feature underpinning primate so- grooming itself) generates a sense of relaxation ciality is the use of trust and (in a weak sense) (grooming lowers heart rate, reduces signs of obligation to ensure that relationships work ef- nervousness such as scratching, and can so relax fectively and do the job they are intended to do. the groomee that it may even fall asleep; For monkeys and apes, predators are the single Goosen, 1981). most important factor influencing group size: We are ourselves familiar with these effects, As a species’ ecological habits expose it to because we show a striking preference for re- increased risk of attack by predators, so its sorting to old-fashioned primate grooming in group size must be proportionately larger to our more intimate relationships; here language protect its members (for reviews, see Dunbar, is an inadequate means for communicating deep 1988, 1996a). Although protection against pred- inner feelings (and especially emotions), and we ators can be seen as clearly advantageous for often resort to physical contact forms of com- primates, it is important not to lose sight of the munication (rubbing, stroking, patting, and pet- fact that sociality has costs as well as benefits. ting) that are extremely effective at triggering 102 DUNBAR the release of endorphins. As the endorphins lent to the number of individuals one knows triggered by these behaviors begin to flood the personally; Dunbar, 1993; Hill & Dunbar, in body, we experience a rising sense of warmth, a press). At some point in our evolutionary his- feeling of peace with the world, of well-being tory, hominid groups began to push against the toward those with whom we share such experi- ceiling on group size. The only way they could ences of intimacy. The effect is instantaneous have broken through this ceiling so as to live in and direct: The physical stimulation of touch groups larger than about 80 individuals was to tells us more about the inner feelings of the find an alternative mechanism for bonding in “groomer,” and in a more direct way, than any which the available social time was used more words could possibly do.