The Bright and Dark Side of Gossip for Cooperation in Groups

Abstract

Recent experimental studies seem to concur that gossip is good for groups by showing that gossip stems from prosocial motives to protect group members from non-cooperators. Thus, these studies emphasize the “bright” side of gossip. However, scattered studies point to detrimental outcomes of gossip for individuals and groups, arguing that a “dark” side of gossip exists. To understand the implications of gossip for cooperation in groups, both the dark and bright side of gossip must be illuminated. We investigated both sides of gossip in two scenario studies. In Study 1 ( N = 108), we confronted participants with a free-rider in their group and manipulated whether the gossip recipient was the free-rider’s potential victim or not. Participants showed a higher group protection motivation in response to gossip when imagining gossiping to a potential victim of a norm violator compared to a non-victim. They showed a higher emotion venting motivation when imagining gossiping to a non-victim compared to a potential victim. Both these gossip motives were related to an increased tendency to gossip. In Study 2 ( N = 104), we manipulated whether participants were the targets or observers of gossip and whether the gossip was true or false. Results showed that targets of negative gossip intended to increase their work effort in the short run, but only when the gossip was true. Furthermore, gossip targets reported lower long-term cooperative intentions toward their workgroup regardless of gossip veracity. This paper demonstrates that gossip has both a “dark” and “bright” side and that situational factors and agent perspectives determine which side prevails.

An Integrative Definition and Framework to Study Gossip

“…One general conclusion that can be drawn from this previous research is that gossip affects all actors involved in the “gossip triad,” comprised people who send it (gossip senders), people who receive it (gossip receivers), and people who become its target (Anderson, Siegel, Bliss-Moreau, & Barrett, 2011; Dores Cruz, Beersma, Dijkstra, & Bechtoldt, 2019; Farley, 2011; Feinberg, Willer, & Schultz, 2014; Feinberg, Willer, Stellar, & Keltner, 2012; Giardini & Wittek, 2019a; Martinescu, Janssen, & Nijstad, 2014; Michelson, Van Iterson, & Waddington, 2010a; Sommerfeld, Krambeck, Semmann, & Milinski, 2007). Moreover, gossip does not only have consequences for individuals but also for teams and organizations (Grosser, Lopez-Kidwell, & Labianca, 2010; Kniffin & Wilson, 2005, 2010; Mills, 2010; Wittek & Wielers, 1998).…”

“…Linking (in)formality to gossip motives, duty-related, and group protection motives (i.e., feeling responsible for others' well-being) might relate more strongly to formal gossip, whereas motives to harm targets’ reputation (Beersma & Van Kleef, 2012; Farley, 2011) might relate more strongly to informal gossip. In order to test this, future research could experimentally manipulate motives (Beersma & Van Kleef, 2012; Dores Cruz et al,2019, Dores Cruz, Beersma, Dijkstra, & Bechtoldt, 2019; Fernandes, Kapoor, & Karandikar, 2017) and study whether (in)formality of gossip is related to these motives.…”

“…However, a closer look reveals that the conclusions we can draw from gossip research regarding the (dys)functionality of gossip are conflicting. While some researchers conclude that gossip entails positive consequences, others conclude that gossip has negative consequences (see also Dores Cruz et al, 2019, Dores Cruz, Beersma, Dijkstra, & Bechtoldt, 2019). This makes it difficult, if not impossible, for gossip research to guide practitioners on how to deal with gossip (i.e., whether to promote or hinder gossip at the workplace).…”

“…To illustrate in an organizational setting, Georganta et al (2014) defined gossip as negative communication and concluded that perceived gossip in organizations is related to emotional exhaustion, low job engagement, and low performance. Likewise, studies point to a negative relationship between gossip conceptualized as negative talk and targets' positive behavior toward colleagues and the organization, due to the negative effects of such gossip on group-related self-views and emotions (Kong, 2018; Wu, Birtch, Chiang, & Zhang, 2018; Wu, Kwan, Wu, & Ma, 2018; Ye, Zhu, Deng, & Mu, 2019; see also Dores Cruz, Beersma, Dijkstra, & Bechtoldt, 2019; Martinescu, Janssen, & Nijstad, 2019; Xie, Huang, Wang, & Shen, 2019b, Xie, Huang, Wang, & Shen, 2019a). Research conceptualizing gossip as negative talk also showed that people use gossip to harm someone else’s reputation or status, whether justified or unjustified, and thus as an indirect form of aggression toward targets (Archer & Coyne, 2005; Ingram, 2014), as shown by the use of gossip to aggress against others, such as professional or romantic rivals (Crothers, Lipinski, & Minutolo, 2009; Jeuken, Beersma, ten Velden, & Dijkstra, 2015; Wyckoff, Asao, & Buss, 2019).…”

Gossip about Coronavirus: Infection status and norm adherence shape social responses

“…Gossip about contagious infectious diseases has been shown to contribute to social stigmatization of individuals suffering from them, as well as to ostracism and bullying of the targets of gossip (Crothers et al, 2009;Feinberg et al, 2014;Pinto et al, 2010;Smith et al, 1999;Stadler, 2003). Similarly, this has been found for people perceived as violating group norms (Dores Cruz et al, 2019;Faulkner et al, 2004;Feinberg et al, 2014). This, in turn, can lead to intragroup conflict, loneliness, and, over time, poorer health outcomes of targets (e.g., Banerjee & Rai, 2020;Holt-Lunstad et al, 2015;Williams, 2007;Xiang et al, 2020).…”