Gossip

Gossip is ubiquitous. Anthropological literature suggests it is virtually universal in human societies, and ethnographic data often reveal a high percentage of gossip in common conversation. Most people encounter gossip in one form or another in the course of a day, either in conversation or from the media. It can be entertaining or dull, useful or destructive. Some researchers have argued persuasively that gossip provided evolutionary advantage to the human species. Modern societies have institutionalized the activity in mass media. This entry focuses on the social functions of gossip, in the context of interpersonal exchanges and at the level of larger social groups.

Gossip may be defined as the exchange, in a context of congeniality, of personal information (positive or negative) in an evaluative way (positive or negative) about absent third parties. Interpersonal gossip is typically traded among (and about) people who have a common history or shared interests. Thus, the evaluative elements in [Page 769]gossip arise from implicit comparisons to social norms to which the conversationalists tacitly subscribe. That is, if people share a social history, remarks exchanged about others in their circle will frequently express or imply comparisons to norms based on known elements of that history.

In defining gossip, the context, setting, and tone of a conversational exchange must be considered. Congenial informality is perhaps the key situational factor that differentiates gossip from other kinds of evaluative exchanges about someone not present. That is, a mood of familiarity, novelty, and a certain “thrill” are essential to the expression of gossip. Parents discussing their child's performance in school with a teacher, for instance, although conforming to the letter of the definition given, would therefore not be considered gossip because the spirit of the conversation lacks the kind of spontaneity and excitement we usually associate with this form of communication.

Although researchers often include positive gossip in the domain, the behavior commonly elicits disapproval and opprobrium colloquially, primarily because the popular assumption is that it disseminates only negative content whose truth value is frequently in question. How much effort gossip-ers or gossipees take to validate the content of gossip may depend on the individual and the milieu (e.g., workplaces, Internet chat rooms, neighborhoods, dormitories, etc.). In gossipy conversation, phrases such as, “I've heard that …,” “It seems to me that …,” “An inside source said …,” “I saw him doing …,” “… or so I'm told,” and so on each convey a slightly different truth value on the accompanying information. Verification of gossip by the gossipee is typically cursory. People seem more likely to rely on casual and indirect confirmatory indicators, such as the status or expertise of the source, than to seek direct access to information when evaluating the truth of gossip.

Researchers have delineated numerous social functions of gossip. It is frequently described, for example, as an efficient and, occasionally, even exclusive means of gathering and disseminating social information. Along these lines, and as developed in social exchange theory, gossip can be seen as a kind of currency, traded like any other, and assessed for its value by the taker on the basis of timeliness, usefulness, and, especially, rarity. This accounts for how an individual may boost his or her social status—temporarily, at least—by being the first to pass a piece of gossip.

...